On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:24:48PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
> >
> > They all look good; make it so, I think. This one in particular:
>
> Bugs sent for all bar qcl (see below). I oopsed and sent multiple reports
> (instead of one aggregated) and didn't X-Debbugs-CC: debian-qa, but they're
> in.
>
> > > qcl: 4 month old RC bug, absolutely no interest from anyone to fix it.
> > > Nothing in twelve months. Has an incredibly limited audience
> > > (quantum computing researchers). Upstream says that it won't work
> > > with GCC 3.x (mentions it explicitly, so it sounds like they've had
> > > this problem before...). It will be a pain to keep.
> >
> > ... is being a bit of a pain for plotutils in testing at the moment.
>
> I missed the later reports in qcl's O: bug that someone else was looking at
> uploading (as of April). I've e-mailed him; if I don't hear anything in a
> few days, I'll petition for qcl's removal as well. It's time we got rid of
> a bit of cruft.
I just tried to recompile it. I failed (with both g++ 2.95 and 3.3)
but had another two _new_ RC bugs to file against qcl.
Report of my work is in #203428.
I say remove it.
Gruesse,
--
*** Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ***
*** http://www.djpig.de/ ***
see also: - http://www.usta.de/
- http://fachschaft.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/
