Path: csiph.com!news.uzoreto.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: peter green Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Bug#945775: python-sponge: should this package be removed. Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Thu Nov 28 13:36:12 2019 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.95 Reply-To: peter green , 945775@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org, Gabriel =?UTF-8?Q?Falc=C3=A3o_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Gon=C3=A7alves?= de Moura X-Debian-Pr-Message: report 945775 X-Debian-Pr-Package: python-sponge X-Debian-Pr-Source: python-sponge X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 14; hammy, 135; neutral, 41; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*u:60.0, 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:!IPv6, 0.000-+--U*debian-python, 0.000-+--debian-python@lists.debian.org, 0.000-+--debianpythonlistsdebianorg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1571409 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 14 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:33:25 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <3fa24734-251d-1b38-64b0-bda3c74e4680@p10link.net> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:985086 linux.debian.maint.python:12052 Package: python-sponge Severity: serious x-debbugs-cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org While looking at some python2 removal issues, I came across python sponge. I noticed the following about the package. * Python 2 only. * Only one maintainer upload (and one NMU) ever. * Not in stable or testing * RC buggy for nearly two years with no maintainer response. * Upstream seems inactive (no commits since 2010, no releases since the one that was packaged for Debian in 2009) * No rdeps. To me this adds up to a package that is not in a fit state to remain in Debian, if noone disagrees I will likely convert this bug to a removal request in the not too distant future.