On 2/22/2017 4:26 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > >> Why would I need to justify package presence in a serious RC bug? > > No need, the idea was for this bug to be either reassigned to > ftp.debian.org (keeping the severity) or downgraded to serve as > documentation, but not both.
You are talking about stretch, not sid. So the bug would never have been reassigned to ftp.debian.org. Neither would the RC severity have really been appropriate. >> It only builds libstdc++5. It's not even a full compiler. That's for >> compatibility with old binaries. > > Ok. Do we have such old binaries in stretch? Are such old binaries > still distributed outside Debian? If not, are there any other > objective criteria which is supposed to be met before removing > libstdc++5? Or we are keeping it just for inertia? IBM binaries used to ship linked against libstdc++5. I don't think now *after the freeze* is the time to remove it, even if it were just for inertia. Kind regards Philipp Kern
