Hi,

A couple of weeks ago was the first anniversary of orphaning Qt3 in Debian
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg00236.html
The orphaning bug is #625502

In this year, Qt3 has got a few QA uploads with the most relevant change
being support to multiarch. And, more importantly, nobody seemed to care
enough to step into maintaining it.

In the last days, I have taken a look into how much needed to be done to
remove Qt3 and there were slightly more than 50 packages depending directly
or indirectly from Qt3. A removal from Wheezy seemed doable
given that removing packages is never a problem during the Debian freeze ;-)

All the packages affected have a bug opened since more than one year and
half ago and I have pinged all the bugs with some maintainers responding
quick (thanks!). I also filed some removals for packages that
were clearly unmaintaineed and didn't seem worth keeping with ftp-masters
responding quick too (Thanks!). And a couple of QA upload
for orphaned software that were still useful without Qt3.

There is a wiki page tracking the status of the removal if you are curious:
http://wiki.debian.org/qt3-x11-freeRemoval

If in the future, you are reading this and you need Qt3 in Wheezy, you can
fetch it from Debian snapshots:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/qt-x11-free/

Ana


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120520165820.GA16145@pryan.ekaia.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120520165820.GA16145@pryan.ekaia.org

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:

> In the last days, I have taken a look into how much needed to be done to
> remove Qt3 and there were slightly more than 50 packages depending directly
> or indirectly from Qt3. A removal from Wheezy seemed doable
> given that removing packages is never a problem during the Debian freeze ;-)

Doesn't LSB compliance require Qt3 ?

Doesn't look like we can drop Qt3 completely unless we drop LSB or LSB
switches to Qt4.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6FvUmL_4B8CB7f2LB2hKrx_w0CDn=-VvWhzHASdDMBnwQ@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6FvUmL_4B8CB7f2LB2hKrx_w0CDn=-VvWhzHASdDMBnwQ@mail.gmail.com

On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:03:04 +0800
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>
> > In the last days, I have taken a look into how much needed to be done to
> > remove Qt3 and there were slightly more than 50 packages depending directly
> > or indirectly from Qt3. A removal from Wheezy seemed doable
> > given that removing packages is never a problem during the Debian freeze ;-)
>
> Doesn't LSB compliance require Qt3 ?

meh.

> Doesn't look like we can drop Qt3 completely unless we drop LSB or LSB
> switches to Qt4.

Does LSB matter? It is an archaic selection of packages which
completely useless for a universal operating system. (It also causes
severe hassle for automated dependency checks in Emdebian or any
Debian derivative.)

Why do we care about LSB? Why do we have to have *all* the LSB
packages when two lsb packages stand out from the rest.

http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lsb

If lsb-desktop becomes uninstallable it can be dropped like any
other package.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Neil Williams wrote:

> Does LSB matter?

LSB is irrelevant to me personally since I'm mostly not interested in
running proprietary software on Linux systems.

I guess LSB must be relevant to Debian since we have it in Debian and
even have a mailing list dedicated to it:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/

Apparently LSB 5.0 will drop the Qt3 requirement:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/2012/02/msg00009.html

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6Eo8VHiukuziiON90MCefK3=MZx2OygArm7pty2BkSd7 g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Eo8VHiukuziiON90MCefK3=MZx2OygArm7pty2BkSd7 g@mail.gmail.com

On 05/21/2012 09:09 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> Does LSB matter?
>
> LSB is irrelevant to me personally since I'm mostly not interested in
> running proprietary software on Linux systems.
>
> I guess LSB must be relevant to Debian since we have it in Debian and
> even have a mailing list dedicated to it:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/
>
> Apparently LSB 5.0 will drop the Qt3 requirement:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/2012/02/msg00009.html

Then we should either drop lsp partly or get 5.0 into Wheezy.


--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4FBB65A9.3080001@bzed.de">http://lists.debian.org/4FBB65A9.3080001@bzed.de