On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:06:45PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Enrico Rossi wrote: > > I saw that the upstream devel of NRSS has deprecated it in favour of > > another software. This has been already reported in the #696302. > > This is what the nrss upstream website says: > > NRSS has been deprecated. Use Canto in the future. You will *not* be > automatically forwarded. > > canto was in Debian but was removed: > Since then it was renamed to canto-ng and new versions were released:
> > I'm asking if shouldn't be the case to rise the level of that bug to RC? > > I don't mean the package shouldn't be in the next stable, also we are > > talking about a very small package indeed, but I think that bug is > > pertinent and should be dealt with before the next stable. > > Looking at the popcon data, about 7 to 20 people use the Debian > package regularly. > > There is no evidence in the BTS of any Debian users of the package, > but there is evidence of one Ubuntu user of the package a long time > ago. It's a yet another case of a package long dead, yet because of no RC bugs, it never got noticed. Only the recent debhelper compat 4 removal caused a massive clean-up of cruft; nrss is at compat 5. I wonder, perhaps we should have some way to query if anybody would object to a package's removal? This question frequently appears both for RoM and RoQA removals. Once the actual RM bug gets filed, it gets acted upon within a few hours with no realistic chance for any third party to act. On one hand, this would prevent issues such as dasher or removal of some orphaned package that was otherwise in a good shape -- and on the other, would help with purging away real cruft. Meow! -- A MAP07 (Dead Simple) raspberry tincture recipe: 0.5l 95% alcohol, 1kg raspberries, 0.4kg sugar; put into a big jar for 1 month. Filter out and throw away the fruits (can dump them into a cake, etc), let the drink age at least 3-6 months.
