What about the removed dependencies?

[Dominique Dumont]

Le Sunday 6 May 2012 21:51:03, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a écrit :
> b) I created libsdl-console in git; but I need you to sponsor it (<---
> reminder).  No changes to dependencies either.

Oops. forgot about this one. 

> c) [...]
> d) [...]
ok.  

> e) but I didn't touch libsdl1.2, which is of course The Biggie, with
> ~60% of machines having it installed.  We need to decide what to do
> with this one.

Ah, ok. debfx did add back the build-deps in the repo. that what confused me.

There may be one way to measure the consequences:
- get the list of impacted packages with build-rdeps
- run sudo cowbuilder --build for each package

This is rather simple. But it will take some bandwidth and cpu cycles.

> On a personal note, let me thank you for defending us in
> debian-devel at .  I was busy during the last few days, and now I don't
> know if it's a good idea to chime in, but I think that it's unfair
> that you take the beating when it was Felix and me who caused the
> trouble.

No problem. I've a thick skin. ;-) 

> >> So, finally, I propose to drop them in
> >> {SDL2,immediately-after-release}, whichever comes first.
> > 
> > Okay, we'll need to be careful with the com.
> 
> Yes, I expect release managers, QA and so on to be angry if they have
> to intervene to fix lots of FTBFS packages in hundreds of
> semi-abandoned crappy games just because removing a few dependencies.

That's possible. On the other hand, there's a new trend where un-maintained 
package are removed faster, because one can always add them back again. That's 
what happened recently with pan.

All the best

Dominique
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sdl-maintainers/attachments/20120508/dd44d933/attachment.pgp>