Bug#599523: Ping - unexpected downgrades

[Michael Biebl]

On 28.10.2012 12:52, Axel Beckert wrote:
> 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.

Not really my call.
I'll let Julian comment on this.

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20121028/a891e693/attachment.pgp>