On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 02:43:50PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:24:28AM +0100, Xavier Lüthi wrote: > > As apt-proxy do not have anymore any active developper but only some > > package maintainers, and taking into account the number of bugs filed > > for apt-proxy, I think it's a reasonable proposition to remove > > apt-proxy from the archive. > > > > Is anyone against this proposition ? <snip> > However, instead of removing the package from the archive, I suggest > turning it into a dummy transitional package which depends on the most > appropriate replacement (according to this bug log, that seems to be > apt-cacher-ng), with a README.Debian that points out how to easily > achieve a working setup with that replacement, and/or even a > NEWS.Debian. That way the upgrade path for users would be easier. > > After a release cycle, the transition package can be safely removed.
Two more months have passed after this ping, without any reaction. I'm
hence going to file a removal RoQA request for apt-proxy. The idea of
the transitional package is not in contrast with that action, it can
simply be added later on as a new binary package of the best replacement
available (e.g. apt-cacher-ng).
I'll followup with the removal bug report, if you have any further
comment please post them there.
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
