Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1018416 > unrolled thread

Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1 Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> - 2020-07-18 12:00 +0200
    Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1 Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2020-07-28 10:00 +0200
      Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1 Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> - 2020-07-28 10:10 +0200
        Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1 Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2020-07-28 18:00 +0200
          Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1 Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> - 2020-07-28 23:10 +0200

#1018416 — Bug#965254: RM: openhackware/0.4.1+git-20140423.c559da7c-4.1

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm

The package openhackware builds a single binary blob, ppc_rom.bin,
which is a bios/firmware for old PowerPC machines.

This firmware were used by qemu package (namely, qemu-system-ppc)
to emulate PowerPC hardware.  However, since version 5.0, support
for this old PowerPC machine type has been removed from qemu, so
this package is basically useless now.

There's no other purpose for this single binary ROM image in the
Debian archive.

Please remove openhackware package from testing.

Thanks,

/mjt

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1019560

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Michael,

On 18-07-2020 11:51, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: rm
> 
> The package openhackware builds a single binary blob, ppc_rom.bin,
> which is a bios/firmware for old PowerPC machines.
> 
> This firmware were used by qemu package (namely, qemu-system-ppc)
> to emulate PowerPC hardware.  However, since version 5.0, support
> for this old PowerPC machine type has been removed from qemu, so
> this package is basically useless now.
> 
> There's no other purpose for this single binary ROM image in the
> Debian archive.
> 
> Please remove openhackware package from testing.

These request should normally be filed against ftp.debian.org and the
package should be removed from unstable first (and then it's
automatically removed from testing). Is there any reason why you request
the removal from testing or should the bug just be reassigned?

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1019563

28.07.2020 10:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
..
> These request should normally be filed against ftp.debian.org and the
> package should be removed from unstable first (and then it's
> automatically removed from testing). Is there any reason why you request
> the removal from testing or should the bug just be reassigned?

Hmm, now I'm confused.

Initially I was about to file the bugreport against ftp.d.o, but
reportbug, after asking questions, told me I should use release.d.o
instead and stopped.. so I did just that.. :)

Dunno if I answered the questions wrong or there's an issue in
reportbug. After all, RM isn't a very-often-thing to happen, and
this is my first RM so I have no prior expirence at all.

Given this background, I'm kindly asking for little help on this,
is just a reassign enough or should I do something else? reportbug
does quite some housekeeping..

Yes it definitely should be removed from unstable, not from testing,
testing should follow.

Thank you!

/mjt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1019615

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org

Hi Michael,

On 28-07-2020 10:00, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 28.07.2020 10:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
> ..
>> These request should normally be filed against ftp.debian.org and the
>> package should be removed from unstable first (and then it's
>> automatically removed from testing). Is there any reason why you request
>> the removal from testing or should the bug just be reassigned?
> 
> Hmm, now I'm confused.
> 
> Initially I was about to file the bugreport against ftp.d.o, but
> reportbug, after asking questions, told me I should use release.d.o
> instead and stopped.. so I did just that.. :)

I admit it's confusing, but it states: Is the removal to be done in a
suite other than "unstable"? Don't select anything for "unstable"
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess we should request reportbug to fix the experience because you're
not the first one to make the mistake.

> Given this background, I'm kindly asking for little help on this,
> is just a reassign enough or should I do something else? reportbug
> does quite some housekeeping..

Done in the first line.

> Yes it definitely should be removed from unstable, not from testing,
> testing should follow.

Ack.

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1019644

28.07.2020 18:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
[]
> I admit it's confusing, but it states: Is the removal to be done in a
> suite other than "unstable"? Don't select anything for "unstable"
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes I've seen this. My thought was, - wait, I want it to be removed
from unstable _and_ testing too! Hence I selected something else
than nothing. At the time - and up to your previous reply, I haven't
realized removals are propagated to testing about the same way as
regular packages.  Maybe that's the reason people hit this trap, -
not realizing it starts at unstable and propagates to testing
the usual way.

> I guess we should request reportbug to fix the experience because you're
> not the first one to make the mistake.


Thank you for the patience and for the proper reassign!

I definitely learned something new today.

/mjt

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web