Subject: Re: Do we ever retire packages?

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:19:23 +0200 (MET DST)

[email-masked] writes:
> May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding packages
> that obsolete and can be retired?

Yes, please!

> I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by
> genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be
> made for xosview as we now have procmeter. 
> 
> Opinions?

Remove them.

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!                | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:07:56 -0500 (CDT)

> that obsolete and can be retired?

Propose that the package be made obsolete on debian-devel.  After the
discussion is resolved, file a bug against ftp.debian.org to make the
change.

Just because packages provide similiar functionality doesn't mean that
one is obsolete.  You'd have to make the case that one package really
is superior in every way to another.

Guy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 14:36 EDT

Dirk> May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding
  Dirk> packages that obsolete and can be retired?

  Guy> Propose that the package be made obsolete on debian-devel.  After the
  Guy> discussion is resolved, file a bug against ftp.debian.org to make the
  Guy> change.

I would like to have a2gs and a2ps removed. They both have the same
Description: text, and scope, "ASCII to PostScript filter".

For me, a2gs is broken. I filed bug 1112 against it [1], and this bug is
still open after 13 months. There are also bugs 3456 and 3848 against it.
a2ps does a similar thing, but is in non-free. It has bugs 1874 and 3911
against it.

Both programs are _completely surpassed_ by enscript (which used to be called
genscript), a _GPL'ed_ program that does more than a2ps and a2gs.

I propose, as I did before, that these programs get removed. Unless someone
complains, I will, as suggested, file two bugs against ftp.debian.org to have
them removed.

[1] I also filed that against gs, and it is hence listed as a gs bug.

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

---

From: [email-masked] (Owen Dunn)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:55:49 +0100

>> made for xosview as we now have procmeter. 

I'm not so convinced; while I may agree that xosview is a complete
mess, I think the user should still have the choice as to whether to
use it or procmeter.

(S)

---

From: Lukas Nellen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:32:24 -0500

> > genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be

Please don't do that. Personally, I am used to a2ps and I'm a lot more attached to my habits than to genscript :-). And I don't see why we should retire a package just because some other package with similar functionality is provided. Think of the different flavours of vi which are available as debian packages.

But I see the point that lack of interest might be a reason to retire a package. I can see two cases in which a package would be considered obsolete:

a) The package is obsolete because the functionality (in the low level sense of, say, the programs provided) is moved into some other package(s). An example would be what happened to libgr.

b) A package is orphaned for a long time and similar functionality (in the high level sense, like genscript vs. a2ps) is provided by another package available. Or the package is considered to be irrelevant for all but a small minority which doesn't express its interest. Maybe such a package should be moved into one directory like {unstable,non-free,contrib}/obsolete for a longer period (to preserve the effort of debianizing the package in case someone wants to take it up later). Eventually, packages can get purged from the obsolete directories if nobody expresses interest in maintaining them. 

By moving a package into one of the obsolete directories, the distribution maintaines and/or the developers express their opinion that a given package is not sufficiently important from their point of view. At the same time, this acts as a final call for a new maintainer to step forward and express his interest in keeping the package alive.

			Lukas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Lukas Nellen                 | Email: [email-masked]
   Depto. de Fisica Teorica, IFUNAM |
   Apdo. Postal 20-364              | Tel.:  +52 5 622 5014 ext. 218
   01000 Mexico D.F., MEXICO        | Fax:   +52 5 622 5015

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 29 Aug 1996 20:23:00 +0200

[email-masked] (Lukas Nellen)  wrote on 27.08.96 in <[email-masked]>:

> Please don't do that. Personally, I am used to a2ps and I'm a lot more
> attached to my habits than to genscript :-). And I don't see why we should
> retire a package just because some other package with similar functionality
> is provided. Think of the differ

Umm ... there's something wrong with your mailer, it seems. Looks like  
paragraphs longer that around 256 chars don't work.

Anyway, how about having a (public) directory especially for obsoleted  
packages?

That way, people could still use them, but they would be warned that there  
is no support, and they are on their own.

Currently, I believe this is distributed in non-obvious ways among  
contrib, experimental, and some private directories.

So, I'd propose a new directory, parallel to contrib and non-free. We  
could call it "dropped" or "orphaned" and include a README saying that  
these are packages that are no longer supported by the Debian project in  
any way, and are not recommended, but if you want them, here they are.

MfG Kai

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 00:13:06 -0500 (CDT)

> any way, and are not recommended, but if you want them, here they are.

contrib is an appropriate location for orphaned software.

Guy

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 19:41:00 +0200

[email-masked] (Dale Scheetz)  wrote on 30.08.96 in <[email-masked]>:

> > [email-masked] (Lukas Nellen)  wrote on 27.08.96 in
> > <[email-masked]>:
> >
> > > attached to my habits than to genscript :-). And I don't see why we
> > > should retire a package just because some other package with similar
> > > functionality is provided. Think of the differ
> >
> Well, actually it's probably a problem with your mail system. I got the
> whole paragraph without truncation.

I've investigated further, and it's both.

He seems to have sent his paragraph as a single, very long line, which is  
definitely wrong. And some program here truncated that long line, which is  
also wrong.

I'll be working on my end of the problem.

MfG Kai

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 96 20:03 BST

Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Re: Do we ever retire packages?"):
...
> complains, I will, as suggested, file two bugs against ftp.debian.org to have

I disagree.  If they really are that broken and noone wants to
maintain them, put them in contrib.

Unless enscript provides programs a2gs and a2ps which emulate their
command line interfaces then it is not a complete replacement.

Ian.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 96 15:25 EDT

Ian> Unless enscript provides programs a2gs and a2ps which emulate their
  Ian> command line interfaces then it is not a complete replacement.

That is a valid point, so I rest my case.