Re: update messages

On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:31:59PM +0000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:40PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Digby Tarvin wrote:
So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if
it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms,
surely there should be something documenting this?

It may have been removed simply because no one was willing to maintain it
any more. That often happens when a non-free package ceases to provide any
functionality not available in a Free package.

--
John Hasler

Its not so much the removal of a package that disturbs me - it is
the apparent lack of warning or explanation.

well, since it was removed from the official repositories in 2001:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215

it is very unlikely that you successfully installed it from official
repositories in 2006. you obviously installed it from another
source. so technically, it was not "Removed without notice". You have
simply lost track of where it came from ;-P


It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have
come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed
until it is urgently needed...

that is the problem with using packages outside the official debian
repositories. You got caught because a non-official package you were
using has gotten out of sync with the official libraries that support
it. best bet is to file a bug report with the group that is supplying
the package. or use the source, luke.



Another package I just noticed is missing since my dist-upgrade is
xlockmore. I searched packages.qa.debian.org and all I found was
what looks like an automated logging of the fact that the package
is gone - no reason or dialogue that I can see:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore/news/20061119T233918Z.html

Is there some mailing list I should be on to receive warnings about
packages being considered for removal (assuming the disappearance
was intentional)?

probably. or you can subscribe to DWN which will list orphan packages
and removed packages as they appear. the W is currently a misnomer,
but we are grateful for the issues we get...

A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fedora needs more evangelism for repositories
    ... As for writing a document on why users should use repositories vs ... I think there are times when downloading and installing a package ... using fedora apt/yum repositories more practical. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: [opensuse] a second GNOME damage after update
    ... As long as the openSUSE Kolab site only lists 10.3 as tested OS, I don't want to upgrade. ... my understanding this should be a bug because no already installed package can be dependent from a new package and prevent it from being installed. ... I would prefer to have access to the repositories what are also available for YaST. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Fedora needs more evangelism for repositories
    ... I've been using Debian since Dec 1998, and only Debian until now that ... I'm giving Fedora a shot for various reasons. ... I've refused to try anything else that doesn't support repositories. ... already populated by the rpm package -- or what is needed to add to your ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fostering Cooperation (was Yum and EXTRAS)
    ... uptake of Extras alone and elevate it above the other repos. ... since repos like Dag intend compatability with Fedora base. ... ''So rather than adding other repositories to your apt/yum configuration ... After package improvement, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: [opensuse] Compiling a metalink client - aria2 - impossible [Solved]
    ... there is no way I can know what package contains that library. ... I understand that repositories solve it another way - I didn't know ... That's similar to the method I have used, except the autoreconf part ... *** An old version of libxml was found. ...
    (SuSE)