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

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Hello,

Le 06/12/2020 à 11:14, Salvatore Bonaccorso a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> [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?
Yeah, we have that in mind :)
We just need to fill bugs on the various users of this crate to make 
sure they don't
use it anymore!

Cheers,
S