Bug#912682: e: Bug#912682: usefulness of this package?

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:00:10AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 21:25:58 +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> 
> > > Ok but I don't see how this bug differs from #915550 and #915876 for both
> > > of which the intent seems to remove the corresponding packages.
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't this package also be considered for removal?
> > 
> > Perhaps. We usually leave it a while in case it is upgraded, as the cost
> > of having around for "a while" in unstable only is judged cheaper than
> > the extra work needed to remove it and then reintroduce it. I think this
> > is mostly a matter of personal opinion and we don't have a firm policy
> > on this, but I'm sure other list members will correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> This matches my impression of our habits as well.
> 
> I'd just like to add that the "maintenance cost" can be zero (no
> releases, no bugs, no nothing) or can be high (e.g. breakage with
> each new perl release) or anything in between. And our habit seems to
> be that if there's no or hardly any work needed there's also no
> particular need to trigger the removal steps.

Per our new policy[1], we'll remove this after July if no new
upstream update appears.

[1] <https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/policy.html#Dual-lived_Modules>