Debian Bug report logs - #1008700
RM: geda-gaf -- RoM; Depends on Python 2, replacement exists

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:48:51 +0200

Source: geda-gaf
Version: 1:1.8.2-11
Severity: serious

Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian:

- Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019
- Also uses outdated Guile
- Last upload in 2018

If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package,
please just close this bug (and fix the open issues).

If you agree with the removal, please reassign to ftp.debian.org
by sending the following commands to control@bugs.debian.org:

--------------------------------------
severity $BUGNUM normal
reassign $BUGNUM ftp.debian.org
retitle $BUGNUM RM: <package> -- RoM; <reasons>
thx
--------------------------------------

Otherwise I'll move forward and request it's removal in a month.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #10 received at 1008700@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org>, 1008700@bugs.debian.org, Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:43:12 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org> writes:

> Source: geda-gaf
> Version: 1:1.8.2-11
> Severity: serious
>
> Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian:

For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a
complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian.  It was forked some years
ago, is actively maintained, and still reads existing geda-gaf designs
and library files perfectly.  I contribute to lepton-eda upstream, and
actively maintain the lepton-eda package in Debian.

I do wonder if there's some action we can/should take when removing
geda-gaf to ease the transition for existing users of the package to
lepton-eda?  Perhaps replace the package content with dependency
information causing the replacement to be more or less automatic on
upgrades?  [shrug]

Bdale

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 1008700@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Cc: 1008700@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:44:03 +0200

Am Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:43:12PM -0600 schrieb Bdale Garbee:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Source: geda-gaf
> > Version: 1:1.8.2-11
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian:
> 
> For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a
> complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian.  It was forked some years
> ago, is actively maintained, and still reads existing geda-gaf designs
> and library files perfectly.  I contribute to lepton-eda upstream, and
> actively maintain the lepton-eda package in Debian.
> 
> I do wonder if there's some action we can/should take when removing
> geda-gaf to ease the transition for existing users of the package to
> lepton-eda?  Perhaps replace the package content with dependency
> information causing the replacement to be more or less automatic on
> upgrades?  [shrug]

If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf
users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm
release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been removed.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #22 received at 1008700@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: 1008700@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:00:53 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> writes:

> If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf
> users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm
> release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been
> removed.

Yes, we could certainly do that.

Bdale

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 1008700@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: 1008700@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 19:24:22 +0200

severity 1008700 normal
reassign 1008700 ftp.debian.org
retitle 1008700 RM: geda-gaf -- RoM; Depends on Python 2, replacement exists
thanks

Reassigning for removal.

Message #40 received at 1008700@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Alteholz <debian@alteholz.de>

To: 1008700@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Subject: reverse dependencies

Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:08:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi everybody,

there are some reverse dependencies that need to be taken care of:

Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Depends:
easyspice/contrib: easyspice
gspiceui: gspiceui


  Thorsten

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #45 received at 1008700-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 1008700-close@bugs.debian.org

Cc: geda-gaf@packages.debian.org

Subject: Bug#1008700: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:07:11 +0000

We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:

      geda | 1:1.8.2-11 | all
  geda-doc | 1:1.8.2-11 | all
geda-examples | 1:1.8.2-11 | all
  geda-gaf | 1:1.8.2-11 | source
geda-gattrib | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
geda-gnetlist | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
geda-gschem | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
geda-gsymcheck | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
geda-symbols | 1:1.8.2-11 | all
geda-utils | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
libgeda-common | 1:1.8.2-11 | all
libgeda-dev | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
 libgeda42 | 1:1.8.2-11 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x

------------------- Reason -------------------
RoM; Depends on Python 2, replacement exists
----------------------------------------------

Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a bug.
The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
it).  Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next
dinstall run at the earliest.

Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.

We try to close bugs which have been reported against this package
automatically. But please check all old bugs, if they were closed
correctly or should have been re-assigned to another package.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 1008700@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at https://bugs.debian.org/1008700

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Thorsten Alteholz (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.