Debian Bug report logs - #349833
RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, better alternatives

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Steve Kemp <skx@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: O: ud

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:00:40 +0000

Subject: O: ud
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

*** Please type your report below this line ***

  The uptime daemon "ud" is pretty brittle and I've not had the
 chance to support it as much as I'd like over the last year.

  I suspect removal from the archive wouldn't hurt too many users.

Steve
--

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Message #10 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@debian.org>

To: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: O: ud

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 03:03:43 +0100

I have some (obscure and probably a bit pervert ;-) interest in this
program, and the bugs I'm seing in the BTS don't look especially hard
to fix.

Unless someone else stands up, I'd be ok to take over the package,
though I don't know how long I'll be able to make it live if upstream
is dead...

HTH

T-Bone

Message #15 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thibaut VARENE <T-Bone@parisc-linux.org>

To: Steve Kemp <skx@debian.org>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: O: ud

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:53:01 +0100

On second thought, uptimed seems to be a much better replacement, and
it *is* maintained...

I'm not so sure it's worth spending more effort on ud now ;)

T-Bone

PS: i've got a couple fixes for the bugs in the BTS, dunno what to do with them

Message #20 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Kemp <skx@debian.org>

To: Thibaut VARENE <T-Bone@parisc-linux.org>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: O: ud

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:44:22 +0000

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:53:01PM +0100, Thibaut VARENE wrote:

> On second thought, uptimed seems to be a much better replacement, and
> it *is* maintained...
> I'm not so sure it's worth spending more effort on ud now ;)

  See my problem ..?

> PS: i've got a couple fixes for the bugs in the BTS, dunno what to do with them

  If the fixes are simple then apply them, but don't take over the
 package.  Just make an upload and set the maintainer to QA.

  (Add yourself to the uploaders field).

  That way people will get the fixes, but you won't adopt it officially.

Steve
-- 
# The Debian Security Audit Project.
http://www.debian.org/security/audit

Message #25 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>

To: Steve Kemp <skx@debian.org>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: O: ud

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:31:59 +0100

On 2/2/06, Thibaut VARENE <varenet@debian.org> wrote:
> On 2/2/06, Steve Kemp <skx@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:53:01PM +0100, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> > > PS: i've got a couple fixes for the bugs in the BTS, dunno what to do with them
> >
> >   If the fixes are simple then apply them, but don't take over the
> >  package.  Just make an upload and set the maintainer to QA.
> >
> >   (Add yourself to the uploaders field).
> >
> >   That way people will get the fixes, but you won't adopt it officially.
>
>
> Fine, will do. Fixes are rather simple. I've revamped the manpages,
> fixed postrm, revamped postinst. I even had a patch moving
> /etc/ud/config to /etc/default/ud but I'm not sure I'll include that
> one in the upload...

I just uploaded ud-0.7.1-19 to DELAYED 7-day on gluck. It features the
above mentioned changes, as well as QA as the new maintainer. I tested
my changes in a rather extensive way (at least for an orphaned package
:)

HTH

T-Bone

Message #32 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

To: 349833@bugs.debian.org

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

Subject: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:44:00 +0200

retitle 349833 RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
reassign 349833 ftp.debian.org
thanks

I think we should remove ud.

  * Orphaned for 6 months.
  * Upstream URL no longer works:
    <http://purelinux.ml.org/ud/>
  * uptimed does the same thing better.
  * popcon: 261 installs, 177 votes.

Thanks,

Matej

Message #41 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk>

To: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:26:54 +0100

On 2 Aug 2006, at 09:44, Matej Vela wrote:

> retitle 349833 RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is  
> better
> reassign 349833 ftp.debian.org
> thanks
>
> I think we should remove ud.
>
>   * Orphaned for 6 months.
>   * Upstream URL no longer works:
>     <http://purelinux.ml.org/ud/>
>   * uptimed does the same thing better.
>   * popcon: 261 installs, 177 votes.

I, for one, still use this, haven't had a problem with it for years,  
and would be sad to see it go. None of the bugs against it are show- 
stoppers, either.

Matthew

-- 
Matthew Vernon MA VetMB LGSM MRCVS
Farm Animal Epidemiology and Informatics Unit
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~mcv21/

Message #46 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

To: Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:11:46 +0200

Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> On 2 Aug 2006, at 09:44, Matej Vela wrote:
>
>> I think we should remove ud.
>[...]
>
> I, for one, still use this, haven't had a problem with it for years,
> and would be sad to see it go. None of the bugs against it are show-
> stoppers, either.

Please do adopt it then.  I simply don't think it should ship with
etch without either an upstream or a Debian maintainer.

Thanks,

Matej

Message #51 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>

To: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:12:53 +0200

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

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 10:44 +0200, Matej Vela wrote:
>   * Orphaned for 6 months.
>   * Upstream URL no longer works:
>     <http://purelinux.ml.org/ud/>
>   * uptimed does the same thing better.
>   * popcon: 261 installs, 177 votes.

As discussed earlier on this list: if the package isn't particularly
buggy (this one has only 2 normal and 2 wishlist bugs), I see no
pressing reason to remove it.

Popcon also shows that hundreds of people appearently use it. I suggest
to withdraw the removal request.


Thijs

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

Message #56 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

To: debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Cc: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>, Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk>, 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:20:33 +0200

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

Le mer 2 août 2006 13:11, Matej Vela a écrit :
> Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> > On 2 Aug 2006, at 09:44, Matej Vela wrote:
> >> I think we should remove ud.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> > I, for one, still use this, haven't had a problem with it for
> > years, and would be sad to see it go. None of the bugs against it
> > are show- stoppers, either.
>
> Please do adopt it then.  I simply don't think it should ship with
> etch without either an upstream 

> or a Debian maintainer. 
there is, it's the QA Group. packages officialy orphaned are really less 
a pain that packages with a MIA maintainer.

I understand sometimes one has to sort out the very old packages from 
the QA group, and that's good, but here it looks like a used and not 
that buggy package, so I second the fact that it should not be removed.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

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

Message #61 received at 349833-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>

To: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

Cc: 349833-done@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:13:38 +0200

On 10734 March 1977, Matej Vela wrote:

> I think we should remove ud.
>   * Orphaned for 6 months.
>   * Upstream URL no longer works:
>     <http://purelinux.ml.org/ud/>
>   * uptimed does the same thing better.
>   * popcon: 261 installs, 177 votes.

And as multiple others in this bug report - I disagree. Has enough
users, has no bugs > normal, no need to remove it yet.
Closing bug.

-- 
bye Joerg
"Paris Hilton" is a woman? Not a hotel? This thread gets more surreal
with every post...
<20050131155540.GC485@schnellbox.pigeonloft>

Message #66 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>

To: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org, 349833@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:40:16 +0200

reopen 349833
retitle 349833 O: ud -- Uptime Daemon
reassign 349833 wnpp
thanks

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> writes:

> On 10734 March 1977, Matej Vela wrote:
>
>> I think we should remove ud.
>>   * Orphaned for 6 months.
>>   * Upstream URL no longer works:
>>     <http://purelinux.ml.org/ud/>
>>   * uptimed does the same thing better.
>>   * popcon: 261 installs, 177 votes.
>
> And as multiple others in this bug report - I disagree. Has enough
> users, has no bugs > normal, no need to remove it yet.

Ah well, it's your decision.  I think the only reason it has so many
users is inertia, because it was there before uptimed.  I'll try to
come up with a migration package...

Cheers,

Matej

Message #77 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Kujau <evil@g-house.de>

To: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:14:34 +0100

Hello,

I'm using "ud" too and had no problems so far (did not encounter #41046,
and #289413 seems to be a wishlist bug). Uptimed may be better
maintained but does not generate neat .html pages, does it?

If the bug-rate of ud stays this low I'd like to adopt it. However, I am
not a DD...

Thanks,
Christian.
-- 
BOFH excuse #432:

Borg nanites have infested the server

Message #82 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mark Purcell <msp@debian.org>

To: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Subject: It's worth removing ud...

Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:02:32 +0100

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

I have been using ud for quite some time now and didn't know about uptimed until I read this orphan request.

So it would be worth removing ud (reassign this bug to ftp.debian.org) so that others find the maintained
package.

Mark

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

Message #87 received at 349833@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net>

To: 349833@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#349833: It's worth removing ud...

Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:03:59 +0200

reassign 349833 ftp.debian.org
retitle 349833 RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, better alternatives
owner 349833 !
thanks

Hi,

Better alternative: uptimed (as pointed in the bug log).

- Lucas

Message #98 received at 349833-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: 349833-close@bugs.debian.org

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

Subject: Bug#349833: fixed

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:57:31 +0000

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

        ud |   0.7.1-21 | source, alpha, amd64, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc

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 349833@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at http://bugs.debian.org/349833

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.
Joerg Jaspert (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.