Debian Bug report logs - #652376
RM: eucalyptus -- RoQA; unmaintained, RC-buggy

Toggle useless 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: RM: eucalyptus -- RoQA; unmaintained, RC-buggy

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:59:06 +0100

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Please remova eucalyptus. It has only seen two uploads 15
months ago and it has accumulated five RC bugs. Popcon is
non-existing.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #10 received at 652376-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

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

To: 652376-close@bugs.debian.org

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

Subject: Bug#652376: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:25:21 +0000

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

eucalyptus |    1.6.2-2 | source
eucalyptus-cc |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-cloud |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-common |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-gl |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-java-common |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-nc |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-sc |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386
eucalyptus-walrus |    1.6.2-2 | amd64, i386

------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; unmaintained, RC-buggy
----------------------------------------------

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 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 where closed
correctly or should have been re-assign to another package.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 652376@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at http://bugs.debian.org/652376

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.
Luca Falavigna (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Message #15 received at 652376@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>, 652376@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org, Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] Bug#652376: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:35:30 +0100

Hello Moritz,

CC debian-qa, as the removal was RoQA.

yes, eucalyptus is in bad shape, but its packaging team is not inactive, and
the reason for not working on version 1.6 is that we focus on 2.0, which we can
not upload yet as it needs the update of another package, gwt.

I do not think that eucalyptus was blocking the release.  Why did not you
contact us before ?  Was the removal so urgent ?

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Message #20 received at 652376@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

Cc: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>, 652376@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] Bug#652376: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:51:49 +0100

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:35:30AM +0100, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hello Moritz,
> 
> CC debian-qa, as the removal was RoQA.
> 
> yes, eucalyptus is in bad shape, but its packaging team is not inactive, and
> the reason for not working on version 1.6 is that we focus on 2.0, which we can
> not upload yet as it needs the update of another package, gwt.
> 
> I do not think that eucalyptus was blocking the release.  Why did not you
> contact us before ?  Was the removal so urgent ?

Noone bothered to look into CVE-2011-2329, which is related to Eucalyptus,
for half a year.

Reuploading Eucalyptus to the archive is easy, but you need to keep it in 
shape on a continous base.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #25 received at 652376@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>

To: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>, 652376@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] Bug#652376: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:24:55 +0100

Le Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:51:49AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:35:30AM +0100, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 
> > CC debian-qa, as the removal was RoQA.
> > 
> > yes, eucalyptus is in bad shape, but its packaging team is not inactive, and
> > the reason for not working on version 1.6 is that we focus on 2.0, which we can
> > not upload yet as it needs the update of another package, gwt.
> > 
> > I do not think that eucalyptus was blocking the release.  Why did not you
> > contact us before ?  Was the removal so urgent ?
> 
> Noone bothered to look into CVE-2011-2329, which is related to Eucalyptus,
> for half a year.

Thanks a lot for the explanation !

-- 
Charles

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.