gnome 1.x removal - Debian

This is a discussion on gnome 1.x removal - Debian ; As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag debian-release@lists.debian.org /gnome-1.x-removal so that people interested in that goal can track our progress. I will ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: gnome 1.x removal

  1. gnome 1.x removal

    As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
    a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
    debian-release@lists.debian.org/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
    interested in that goal can track our progress.

    I will file a removal request for gnome-libs when I come back from
    vacation in 10 days, and then will raise the bugs I just sent to
    serious.

    Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
    related libs until we got rid of them al.

    If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now
    is the time to fix that, package a new upstream, or ask for its removal,
    so that it eases our work.

    TIA
    --
    ·O· Pierre Habouzit
    ··O madcoder@debian.org
    OOO http://www.madism.org

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHi+svvGr7W6HudhwRAhOpAJ0VAUiCH8cCxjRVNZ7RwS tQlznFbgCfbcMt
    X6kFjPYp3fRM9Vykejna/ps=
    =/ZWh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
    obviously subscribed to both.)

    On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
    > believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on
    > gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over
    > maintenance.


    Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting
    that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of
    one-could-say obsolete software?

    > It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took
    > gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy
    > for them.


    xmms might be another example. *cough*

    Cheers,

    --
    Cyril Brulebois

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHjApSeGfVPHR5Nd0RAsGPAJ9c9Ys7PDztO04r4rztUG ppV0Kc1QCgoIij
    ZU17I6W7jSm6ns2uUW/qHTc=
    =+su2
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 01/14/08 19:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
    > (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
    > obviously subscribed to both.)
    >
    > On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    >> This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
    >> believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on
    >> gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over
    >> maintenance.

    >
    > Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting
    > that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of
    > one-could-say obsolete software?


    I think he meant that maintainers of the obsolete sw that uses v1.2
    should be the ones to maintain v1.2.

    >> It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took
    >> gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy
    >> for them.

    >
    > xmms might be another example. *cough*


    - --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian
    because I hate vegetables!"
    unknown
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHjBYiS9HxQb37XmcRAk2OAKCRxUS0jCmMBMyplYHT4i y5dJZ0dwCgsQrH
    hFC0Cti7tQbsuoQ/K+Bu9dY=
    =68wv
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:34:54AM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
    > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +0000, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
    > > chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
    > > depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove
    > > requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly
    > > chance to take over maintenance themselves.


    And please don't disregard the Reply-To I set, debian-release@ isn't a
    discussion list. Thanks.
    --
    ·O· Pierre Habouzit
    ··O madcoder@debian.org
    OOO http://www.madism.org

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHjH56vGr7W6HudhwRArkGAJ4jwAu2eYxmYwugq/DGrtzUwq+QUgCeLHT8
    t0XmuKFu+8Kb1U2Fk1Gn4NA=
    =hueg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHjKllmO5zOp3h7rERApjKAJ0ZuqMhOQ75Iuvtk+RP8U il80h4HwCfUpfh
    8eLHfNg9dnCRpf1OPsh1t6Y=
    =6W8A
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  6. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
    > "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" writes:
    > > "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of
    > > the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as
    > > there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed
    > > regardless of how old it is.

    >
    > GNOME 1.x is neither maintained in Debian nor upstream. Noone has
    > stepped forward to keep it alive. The main reason that it's still in
    > Debian is that we don't clean up often enough.


    I had the impresion from this thread that people hadn't had the chance to
    step forward to take over maintenance yet,
    seems that impression was wrong, in which case I'm all for removal
    --
    Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHjMK55ihPJ4ZiSrsRAskvAJ9wAyu/iV+FiCyqQu9SOWP2kQF75gCfXOLK
    ejaqQpqgK5ffh8qHwokA8Bw=
    =4l/u
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  7. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
    > So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
    > about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
    > gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the
    > maintenance.
    >


    gnome-libs has now been orphaned for more than a year. I would have
    expected it to have been picked up by now.

    > Most? Really? Wow, I'm impressed. Are you sure? People said this the
    > last time around, and they forgot gnucash. How about we let these
    > maintainers make that determination rather than you making it for them?
    >


    Do you know of any specific examples that would cause a problem?

    Neil
    --
    hm, maybe wearing a black t-shirt while dusting my bedroom for the
    first time in years wasn't such a good idea

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHjOc097LBwbNFvdMRAoJeAJ9xcm+WYs0ZsF2n/9r1vnsKnYX0BgCfSHMY
    4ouvX6WRCV1tBvMHdX32kYE=
    =dO5W
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  8. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

    > I wouldn't. I don't keep tabs on every package that my packages depend
    > on. One of them could be orphaned and I would never know.


    Running wnpp-alert weekly out of cron is a good idea for any DD, IMO.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

    > Instead of saying "we're deleting this, you will all have to adapt",
    > say, "we aren't maintaining this anymore; if you want it, you'll
    > have to start taking it over."


    Isn't that exactly what bug #369130 means? I thought it was the
    responsibility of the package maintainer to run 'wnpp-alert' to be
    aware if the packages they depend on need help.

    It was retitled as ITA on 2007-08-19, and not altered since then. That
    means it won't show up in 'wnpp-alert', which is unfortunate since
    it's been rather a long time.

    --
    \ "I know when I'm going to die, because my birth certificate has |
    `\ an expiration date." -- Steven Wright |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  10. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    Pierre Habouzit wrote:
    > As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
    > a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
    > debian-release@lists.debian.org/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
    > interested in that goal can track our progress.


    Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this.

    > Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
    > related libs until we got rid of them al.


    If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps
    are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to
    use libxml2.

    Cheers,
    Moritz




    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:50PM +0000, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
    > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
    > > As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
    > > a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
    > > debian-release@lists.debian.org/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
    > > interested in that goal can track our progress.

    >
    > Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this.
    >
    > > Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
    > > related libs until we got rid of them al.

    >
    > If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps
    > are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to
    > use libxml2.


    Okay, this will go next then, consider it on my todolist.

    --
    ·O· Pierre Habouzit
    ··O madcoder@debian.org
    OOO http://www.madism.org

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBHjUSpvGr7W6HudhwRAqT8AJ40WEmrw90y3Ir628fmx/sv9Qji+QCfQPiT
    xq6joHFCiS+Ptg8rqNU+XDs=
    =gFbr
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  12. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    Quoting Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net):

    > Because the last time you all did this it got all the way to deleting
    > the packages and I had to run around and clean that up. I'm asking you
    > to give the maintainers a chance. That's all. Is it really that hard
    > to do?


    Isn't this what is happening right now?



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHjZiP1OXtrMAUPS0RAtUmAKChhYlZCfxPabDvnmo9Xz oxr+bQAwCgqTR7
    xMvKgxIFU4uAN4Q47U8WiLk=
    =/PBJ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  13. Re: gnome 1.x removal

    On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:50PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
    > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
    > > As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started
    > > a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag
    > > debian-release@lists.debian.org/gnome-1.x-removal so that people
    > > interested in that goal can track our progress.

    >
    > Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this.
    >
    > > Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
    > > related libs until we got rid of them al.

    >
    > If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps
    > are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to
    > use libxml2.


    With my libxml1 and libxml2 maintainer hat on, I'd even say packages
    using libxml1 are using a really buggy XML parser and really should be
    fixed to use libxml2.

    Mike


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread