On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:39:05PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 18:56:04 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely
> > > as a result of this review. I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with
> > > these outstanding concerns.
>
> > In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse
> > dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev. According to dak,
> > that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie. Is opie an
> > optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for
> > libpam-opie, no idea for the others)?
>
> Just checked for inetutils, and it's actually not being used, upstream
> removed the users, but not the configure check. I'll fix that for next
> upload.
Guillem, you seem to have only dropped it in experimental. Are you
planning the same for sid/squeeze?
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
