On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > > > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing > > > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex > > > documentation. Was there a reason? > > Uploading libfoo2 and making libfoo1 disappear are actually done by > different people. Removal of obsolete binaries is done by the ftpteam, > I’m putting them on the loop via Bcc, and moving the discussion to > -devel. > > ftpteam, would you be open to discussing a well-defined policy about > removal of NBS libraries from unstable? Personally I couldn’t care less > about installability problems on user’s machines running unstable: my > take is that those machines should have testing in sources.list, period. > However, rendering important parts of the toolchain uninstallable is > something different.
As the current "RM Master" ;) I see two realistic possibilities: 1) Someone just write me a mail if I should some part of the cruft report or ping me on IRC. This would of course scale to a few cases only. 2) Someone improve the cruft report so that I can see how many packages still depend on the package to be removed, so I can try to make my own judgement. I will not be able to indivdually investigate each cruft package for this specific problem. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <dj...@debian.org> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
