On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 08:46:15PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:23:58 +0200 > Martin MAURER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The project has been dead for more than a year now. Anyways, apart from > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=433817, which I can > > easily solve by removing fireflier-client-gtk, there are no known > > problems. > > Should I ask for removal of it? Especially as orphaning it would mean a > > dead package where no upstream exists either. > > Plenty of orphaned packages have no upstream (plenty of non-orphaned > packages too). It isn't an automatic reason to remove the package. > > (I liked the look of one package with a dead upstream and took over > upstream development - it does happen. Upstream stopped development in > 1999, I took over last year. The fact that it took 7 years is besides > the point, as long as the package remains usable. A dead upstream > makes restarting development quite easy - get the apt source, strip > out the generated stuff and start a new RCS of whatever flavour you > choose - it's actually less work than picking up development of a > half-dead project where you have to ask for commit access and deal > with someone else's configuration.)
The problem is that one of the dependency will be removed. So if it's possible to take the -gtk package down, I'd rather go that road. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpvXgKD8ONlx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
