Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

Moritz Muehlenhoff
Source: swift-im
Severity: serious

Should swift-im be removed?
- No upload since more than two years
- Totally outdated compared to upstream
- Virtually no users in popcon
- Depends on legacy libs (OpenSSL 1.0, qt4)

Unless any objections are raised, I'd reassign this bug to ftp.debian.org
for removal.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

W. Martin Borgert
On 2018-12-06 22:55, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Unless any objections are raised, I'd reassign this bug to ftp.debian.org
> for removal.

I contacted the maintainers about the package in April,
but did not yet receive an answer.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

W. Martin Borgert
In reply to this post by Moritz Muehlenhoff
On 2018-12-07 13:41, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Apologies, I’d forgotten that we’d prepared an update from upstream and not gotten it submitted. We’ll try to address this in the next week or so.

Nice!

If you intend to raise the package from the not yet dead, please
consider joining the XMPP packaging team and have the Debian
package code in salsa.debian.org/xmpp-team/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

Moritz Mühlenhoff-2
In reply to this post by Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:41:47PM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Apologies, I’d forgotten that we’d prepared an update from upstream and not gotten it submitted. We’ll try to address this in the next week or so.

What's the status :-)

Cheers,
        Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

Moritz Mühlenhoff-2
In reply to this post by Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:31:17AM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2018, at 22:52, Moritz Mühlenhoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:41:47PM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> Apologies, I’d forgotten that we’d prepared an update from upstream and not gotten it submitted. We’ll try to address this in the next week or so.
> >
> > What's the status :-)
>
> I’m sitting with packages in front of me, I need to test them, and then remember what to do next :)

Please sort this out ASAP, we're down to five packages depending on OpenSSL 1.0
and those will simply be removed along in a few weeks tops.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: Should this package be removed?

Kevin Smith-2
On 20 Feb 2019, at 22:19, Moritz Mühlenhoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:31:17AM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2018, at 22:52, Moritz Mühlenhoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:41:47PM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>> Apologies, I’d forgotten that we’d prepared an update from upstream and not gotten it submitted. We’ll try to address this in the next week or so.
>>>
>>> What's the status :-)
>>
>> I’m sitting with packages in front of me, I need to test them, and then remember what to do next :)
>
> Please sort this out ASAP, we're down to five packages depending on OpenSSL 1.0
> and those will simply be removed along in a few weeks tops.

The packages are with mattia for uploading, but I know he’s very busy so hasn’t looked at them yet. Should we go another way to get them checked and uploaded? (Yes, I’m relatively clueless about Debian policy here, sorry).

/K
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#915805: NMU of swift-im

Dominik George-7
In reply to this post by Moritz Muehlenhoff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Kevin, hi Mattia,

as I needed libswiften to build something, I went fixing the most important
bugs in the package so it at least builds again in current sid.

Would you want me to upload these fixes as NMU, so the package is usable
until you get everything else solved?

Cheers,
Nik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BBKN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----