Debian Bug report logs - #227054
RM: iceme -- RoQA; orphaned, outdated

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Jerome Marant <jerome@debian.org>

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

Subject: O: iceme -- A graphical menu editor for IceWM

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:49 +0100 (CET)

Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

 IceMe is a graphical menu and shortcut editor for
 the IceWM window manager, written in Python and
 GTK+. You can edit menu entries with drag and drop
 as well as cut and paste. Both the default menu
 and the local menu in the users home directory can
 be edited.

 This application is outdated and should be replaced
 by Icewm control panel which provides an updated
 version of it.

Message #14 received at 227054@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

To: 227077@bugs.debian.org, 227054@bugs.debian.org, 285619@bugs.debian.org, 298899@bugs.debian.org, 311597@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Ping

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:14:09 -0400

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

This is just a ping to let people know that I am still working
on/interested in these packages/bugs.  I have been a bit busy with
school lately, but I will get to them soon.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #19 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

To: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

Cc: 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Status of the package.

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:33:10 +0200

Hi!

iceme is an old configuration tool for icewm. Other tools exist for the task
and upstream of iceme seems to have halted any development on this
application already during feb 2003.

I will recommend the removal from the archive.

-- 
Jesus Climent                                      info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.12|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69

And then he ran into my knife... he ran into my knife ten times.
		--June (Chicago)

Message #24 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

To: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

Cc: 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:50:43 -0400

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

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:33:10AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> iceme is an old configuration tool for icewm. Other tools exist for the task
> and upstream of iceme seems to have halted any development on this
> application already during feb 2003.
> 
> I will recommend the removal from the archive.
> 

Please don't :-)

I will be replacing iceme and icepref both with icewmcp, that way
current users have an upgrade path.  I just finished classes yesterday
and plan to get to work on this in the next few days.  Hopefully it will
be ready soon, as I admin a number of workstations that use IceWM and I
would like an updated configuration tool for them.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

To: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

Cc: 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:27:04 +0200

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:50:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:33:10AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > iceme is an old configuration tool for icewm. Other tools exist for the task
> > and upstream of iceme seems to have halted any development on this
> > application already during feb 2003.
> > 
> > I will recommend the removal from the archive.
> > 
> 
> Please don't :-)
> 
> I will be replacing iceme and icepref both with icewmcp, that way
> current users have an upgrade path.  I just finished classes yesterday
> and plan to get to work on this in the next few days.  Hopefully it will
> be ready soon, as I admin a number of workstations that use IceWM and I
> would like an updated configuration tool for them.

The removal will be performed on testing/unstable, so once icewmcp is
available the current users will have an available upgrade path.

Tell me if my reasoning is wrong in any way.

-- 
Jesus Climent                                      info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.12|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69

Shall I make us a nice cup of tea, Ma'am ?
		--Mrs. Mills (The others)

Message #34 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

To: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

Cc: 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:59:01 -0400

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

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:27:04AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:50:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > 
> > I will be replacing iceme and icepref both with icewmcp, that way
> > current users have an upgrade path.  I just finished classes yesterday
> > and plan to get to work on this in the next few days.  Hopefully it will
> > be ready soon, as I admin a number of workstations that use IceWM and I
> > would like an updated configuration tool for them.
> 
> The removal will be performed on testing/unstable, so once icewmcp is
> available the current users will have an available upgrade path.
> 
> Tell me if my reasoning is wrong in any way.
> 

My plan was to "upgrade" iceme and icepref to be dummy packages that
depend on icewmcp and conflict with the previous versions of iceme and
icepref.  Your plan would interfere with that.  However, I am open to
alternate suggestions.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #39 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

To: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>, 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:24:37 +0200

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 07:59:01PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:27:04AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > 
> > The removal will be performed on testing/unstable, so once icewmcp is
> > available the current users will have an available upgrade path.
> > 
> > Tell me if my reasoning is wrong in any way.
> > 
> 
> My plan was to "upgrade" iceme and icepref to be dummy packages that
> depend on icewmcp and conflict with the previous versions of iceme and
> icepref.  Your plan would interfere with that.  However, I am open to
> alternate suggestions.

That would be ok if they are drop-in replacements, but otherwise you would
update an application on a users machine replacing it with one that might have
a completely different behaviour than the previous one, and that might not be
desired.

Cheers,

-- 
Jesus Climent                                      info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.12|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69

First came darkness, then came the strangers.
		--Dr. Schreber (Dark City)

Message #44 received at 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

To: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

Cc: 227054-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 07:24:34 -0400

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 07:59:01PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > 
> > My plan was to "upgrade" iceme and icepref to be dummy packages that
> > depend on icewmcp and conflict with the previous versions of iceme and
> > icepref.  Your plan would interfere with that.  However, I am open to
> > alternate suggestions.
> 
> That would be ok if they are drop-in replacements, but otherwise you would
> update an application on a users machine replacing it with one that might have
> a completely different behaviour than the previous one, and that might not be
> desired.
> 

OK.  I had not considered that.  I believe, in that case, your approach
is more correct.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto

Message #49 received at 227054@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

To: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>, Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>

Cc: 227054@bugs.debian.org, 227077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of the package.

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:13:30 +0100

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:24:34 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
>> That would be ok if they are drop-in replacements, but otherwise you would
>> update an application on a users machine replacing it with one that might have
>> a completely different behaviour than the previous one, and that might not be
>> desired.
>
> OK.  I had not considered that.  I believe, in that case, your approach
> is more correct.

So, should iceme and icepref be removed?

Thanks,

Matej

Message #54 received at 227054@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

To: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>, 227077@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jesus Climent <data@hispalinux.es>, 227054@bugs.debian.org, 330469@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#227077: Status of the package.

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:34:51 -0500

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

Matej Vela wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:24:34 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
>>
>>>That would be ok if they are drop-in replacements, but otherwise you would
>>>update an application on a users machine replacing it with one that might have
>>>a completely different behaviour than the previous one, and that might not be
>>>desired.
>>
>>OK.  I had not considered that.  I believe, in that case, your approach
>>is more correct.
> 
> 
> So, should iceme and icepref be removed?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matej
> 

I believe that is the consensus.  I have not used either and so am not
sure if icewmcp is considered a drop-in replacement.  Also, you may want
to look at the bug oprhaning icemc.  That package may also be a
candidate for removal if it is dead upstream or has been subsumed by
icewmcp.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto

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

Message #59 received at 227054@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

To: 227054@bugs.debian.org, 227077@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: RM: iceme, icepref -- RoQA; orphaned, outdated

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:30:05 +0200

retitle 227054 RM: iceme -- RoQA; orphaned, outdated
reassign 227054 ftp.debian.org
retitle 227077 RM: icepref -- RoQA; orphaned, outdated
reassign 227077 ftp.debian.org
thanks

Please remove iceme and icepref.

  * Orphaned for two and a half years.  Adopter agrees with removal:
    <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=227054;msg=54>
  * Both are outdated with respect to current IceWM.  The suggested
    replacement is icewmcp (being packaged; see #216301).
  * popcon:
    - icepref: 303 installs, 64 votes.
    - icewm: 219 installs, 42 votes.

Thanks,

Matej

Message #70 received at 227054-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian Archive Maintenance <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 227054-close@bugs.debian.org

Cc: iceme@packages.debian.org, iceme@packages.qa.debian.org

Subject: Bug#227054: fixed

Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:42:00 -0700

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

     iceme |   1.0.0-12 | source, all

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 (ftp-master.debian.org) and will not propagate to any
mirrors (ftp.debian.org included) until the next cron.daily run at the
earliest.

Packages are never 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.

Bugs which have been reported against this package are not automatically
removed from the Bug Tracking System.  Please check all open bugs and
close them or re-assign them to another package if the removed package
was superseded by another one.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 227054@bugs.debian.org.

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

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.