Obsoletion procedures?

[Max Bowsher]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:52:26PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Three of my library packages are going to be becoming obsolete in the
>> medium-term future.
>>
>> libapr0 and libaprutil0 and their development packages apr and apr-util
>> are already used only by [prev] software.
>>
>> libneon24 is used solely by [curr] cadaver, and [prev] subversion.
>>
>> I'm soliciting opinions on how long library packages should remain after
>> they no longer are required by any other software in the distro.
> 
> I don't think any opinions are required.  We have a procedure for this.
> The package move into the _obsolete category/_obsolete directory, and the
> latest package becomes an empty .tar.bz2 file.
> 
> I don't see any reason to remove packages from the _obsolete category
> once they are put there.


Sorry, I could have been clearer. The issue is that these are all
library packages, which people could conceivably have self-compiled
stuff depending upon.

I'd like some opinions on how long a real (not empty .tar) version of a
library should persist, after nothing in the distribution requires it
any more.


Max.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20060613/6910036c/attachment.sig>