[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#969839: Bug#969839: Bug#973298: Bug#969839: rust-failure: Should rust-failure be removed from unstable?

Salvatore Bonaccorso carnil at debian.org
Sun Dec 6 10:14:19 GMT 2020


[trimming the recipients, dropping the ftp.d.o bug and ftp-masters]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 05/12/2020 à 18:58, Mark Hymers a écrit :
> > On Sat, 05, Dec, 2020 at 12:26:27PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru spoke thus..
> > > > So you are right, thanks for spotting my mistake, which is because I
> > > > indeed only check if dak rm would cause any issues. I agree that we
> > > > thus likely cannot remove it for now from unstable.
> > > It has been removed despite this comment. This causes a bunch of breakage.
> > > Could you please bring it back?
> > At the request of the release-team, we re-injected the packages which
> > were still in testing back into unstable.  Should be back at the next
> > dinstall.
> Excellent, many thanks!

Thanks for bringing it back!

I have lowered the severity for #969839 accordingly to move it away
from RC severity and avoiding it going to removed from testing but
still tracking so RUSTSEC-2020-0036 issue.

For me the question which remains: Given rust-failure has many
"reverse dependencies", but it is officially EOLed/deprecated
upstream, do we have away to fade out it's usage in the (middle/long?)
term within Debian? It won't be possible so it looks for bullseye, but
should we aim for later?


More information about the Pkg-rust-maintainers mailing list