Unused libgc-7.2 package?

Unused libgc-7.2 package?

[Leo Famulari]

Do we need the libgc-7.2 package anymore? AFAICT, nothing is using it,
but it's possible I missed something.

Re: Unused libgc-7.2 package?

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 433 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:26:50PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Do we need the libgc-7.2 package anymore? AFAICT, nothing is using it,
> but it's possible I missed something.
> 

You can add texinfo@4 to that list

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Unused libgc-7.2 package?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> Do we need the libgc-7.2 package anymore? AFAICT, nothing is using it,
> but it's possible I missed something.

Indeed, you can remove it.

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:

> You can add texinfo@4 to that list

Right.  Initially it was kept because it’s the last series that doesn’t
use Perl and so it has a much smaller footprint.  I’d keep it, but
mostly out of nostalgia.  :-)

Ludo’.

Re: Unused libgc-7.2 package?

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> 
> > Do we need the libgc-7.2 package anymore? AFAICT, nothing is using it,
> > but it's possible I missed something.
> 
> Indeed, you can remove it.

Done as c8d1e7a1308e3c83aeb556be7d5b1e1836544e95 on core-updates.