Bug#599523: Ping - unexpected downgrades

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 16.06.2012 18:50, Arne Wichmann wrote:
> > Is there any progress on this serious bug? It is now unhandled for more
> > than one year.
> 
> update-manager is basically unmaintained atm.

So what about RFA'ing update-manager then at least?

Ignoring the epoch, Ubuntu has only lower versions than Squeeze in any
of their releases, even in raring (1:0.174.3 in quantal and raring vs
0.200.5-1 in squeeze and 0.200.5-2 in wheezy). See [1] and [2].

  [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=update-manager
  [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/update-manager.html

So Ubuntu explicitly prefers an older version than Debian for years
now despite its a dependency of (at least) ubuntu-desktop. This looks
quite uncommon and suspicious.

(Or is that even a completely different package but with the same name
in Ubuntu and Debian?)

So maybe orphaning or even removal from testing is the better solution
than just RFA'ing the package.

It only seems to have one hard reverse dependency (and a few Suggests
and one second-level Recommends) in Testing currently, i.e. removing
it from testing and hence wheezy shouldn't be too complicated with
regards to reverse dependencies:

  update-notifier depends on update-manager-gnome

But OTOH 26% popcon installations and 10% votes rather oppose a
removal quite strongly.

I hence recommend to at least issue an RFA for update-manager.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5