Hi there! I thought a bit more about the not-so-widely-used packages I maintained in the past and I think that most of them could be removed from Debian without big problems.
Please note that in a week from now I will ask for removal of the packages specified below, if no one complains before. On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:54:36 +0100, Luca Capello wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:00:44 +0100, Luca Capello wrote: >> According to <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=l...@pca.it> and >> <http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=gi...@debian.org>, the >> packages were I am still listed in the Uploaders: field are: >> >> - cedilla > > This is still maintained in Darcs, I will port it to Git and then remove > myself from the Uploaders:. This has 70 popcon installations (with a steady curve and 2 recent) and no reverse dependencies. Given this fact, it is probably better to orphan it instead. However, upstream development seems to have stopped on 20090614 (the latest version available in Debian) and there are other alternatives to convert Unicode to PostScript similar to a2ps (u2ps, gnome-u2ps or even the CUPS texttops filter), with gnome-u2ps available in Debian main. >> - ecl > > The Git repository on Alioth is not up-to-date: Christoph, can you push > your last changes, please? Ping (this time cc:ing Christoph). >> - ironclad > > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-common-lisp/ironclad.git;a=commitdiff;h=2ae95bfa44a900e0ce205d64b94a891e1f5a4bac > > This will remain with no maintainer (Alceste has been MIA for a long > time now), is it still useful or should I ask for it to be removed? 31 popcon installations (with a decreasing curve and no recent), no reverse dependencies, candidate to be removed. Upstream is still developing it (latest released version is 0.28), but given that the package is available via clbuild (both 1 and 2, however not tested), end-users should not be left alone in the dark. >> - rfc2388 > > This is still maintained in Darcs, I will port it to Git and then remove > myself from the Uploaders:. > > Is it still useful or should I ask for it to be removed? 43 popcon installations (with a decreasing curve and no recent), no reverse dependencies, candidate to be removed. Upstream development stopped back in 2003 and a fork was produced by the people involved in Uncommon Web (UCW), a fork I would have liked to merge back in the original project but I have never found the time (and, to be honest, the motivation) to do. It is available via clbuild (both 1 and 2, not tested). >> - s-xml > > This is still maintained in Darcs, I will port it to Git and then remove > myself from the Uploaders:. > > Is it still useful or should I ask for it to be removed? 51 popcon installations (with a decreasing curve and no recent), no reverse dependencies, candidate to be removed. The latest CVS commit was 2 years ago, actually a patch I provided. Nowadays, there are other simple XML parser for Common Lisp (cxml, cxml-stp and xmls), with xmls even available in Debian main. FWIW, s-xml is available via clbuild (2 only). FWIW, it is a bit sad to see this package being removed from Debian, given that it was my first package accepted into the archive back in June 2005, with the second one being rfc2388 in September of the same year. However, everything has an end... >> - url-rewrite > > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-common-lisp/url-rewrite.git;a=commitdiff;h=2c6bab7ecc55c48b8eca2f3d9c85d0badb7945ac > > This will remain with no maintainer (Alceste has been MIA for a long > time now), is it still useful or should I ask for it to be removed? 53 popcon installations (with a decreasing curve and no recent), no reverse dependencies, candidate to be removed. Latest upstream version is 0.1.1, released in 2006, available via clbuild (both 1 and 2, not tested). Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgpjkhOOP9OHP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
