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

On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:07 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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.

This happened once before when the issue was gnucash.

I was the gnucash maintainer, and the gnome maintainers had decreed that
"Debian must not have gnome 1.x in it!" And all the libraries were
about to vanish.

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.

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.

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.

Thomas



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

(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 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

On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 02:20 +0100, 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?

No, I said just what I meant: the maintainers of packages dependent on
gnome 1.x should be offered the option of taking over maintenance. The
release team certainly should not bear that task, unless individuals
within it for their own reasons choose to.

Thomas



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

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.

Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of
packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a
bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is:

cheops-ng
coriander
cronosii
directory-administrator
fvwm
gabber
gaby
gbatnav
gbib
gdk-pixbuf
gfontview
gfslicer
glotski
gmanedit
gmoo
gnome-chess
gnome-lokkit
gnome-print
gnomemm
gnomp3
gpgp
gphotocoll
gtkgo
gtkgrepmail
gtoaster
junior-gnome
libglade
libgtk-canvas
libgtk-perl
mathwar
multi-gnome-terminal [ maintainer already agreed upon removal ]
nethack
pimppa
powershell
snac
soundtracker
spacechart
telegnome
terraform
xemacs21
xgsmlib
xwine

Most of those package either have far better alternatives (gabber,
gtoaster, …), are libs (lib*, gnomemm, …) or will probably easily drop
the dependency (xemacs21, nethack, …). Most of the upstreams of those
applications are dead, and the applications don't budge, and there is
little point in having them in lenny when you can use the version in
etch on your lenny without a problem.

And btw, I didn't filed a bug for removal of gnome-libs yet, I'll
first wait to see how this list get reduced.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org

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

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, 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.
>
> Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of
> packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a
> bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is:

"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.

=> If the current maintainer is no longer interested others should get the
change to step forward and take over, and only if noone steps up it should
be removed
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <cobaco@skolelinux.no> 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.

Marc
--
BOFH #24:
network packets travelling uphill (use a carrier pigeon)

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <cobaco@skolelinux.no> 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)