On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:36:11AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> shouldn't even have to use a delayed queue, Stefano! After the lousy
> care I've been giving doc-central for years, you surely could have gone
> for a straight NMU, particularly because I've also been on the
> http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu list since forever. =)
Well, sorry, it's my usual workflow: it's cheap to use it *always*, at
worst 2 extra days will pass ;) Anyhow, thanks for your feedback: I've
just rescheduled the NMU for immediate processing.
> I've just responded to a ping from Mats in private, and, like I just
> told him in that email, I'm letting the NMU in and acknowledging it in
> the next maintainer upload (hopefully soon).
Actually, we've discussed a bit about the fate of doc-central on -devel,
a few weeks ago. In fact, there seems to be consensus that the package
itself is no longer needed, except that for pleasing who is still using
it: there are alternatives now that are feature complete wrt to it, in
particular dwww. I've resisted the desire of many of removing the
package from the archive, because I believe we should provide some
smooth migration.
So, if you want to spend some time on the packaging, I believe it would
be worth to replace doc-central with a transitional package towards
dwww, by providing a tiny compatibility layer which warns that the
package will be gone in the next release. Please consider it.
Thanks for your feedback,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
