Re: Packages marked as testing auto-removel due to bug#999962
Manphiz <manphiz@gmail.com> writes:
> Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Manphiz <manphiz@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [..snip..]
>>
>>> It seems that the maintainer has been MIA. Do you suggest proposing an
>>> NMU?
>>
>> Until a package has been orphaned by the MIA team, the question is NMU
>> vs salvaging:
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/PackageSalvaging
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging
>>
>> If a minimal, targeted fix is possible (with a quilt patch) then an NMU
>> is faster, and doesn't implicate the uploader with long-term
>> responsibilities. The allowed changes are narrow, and strict.
>>
>> If that's not possible, then salvaging the package is the only way to
>> save it and its reverse dependencies. Salvaging implies adoption. I
>> took a look at the available forks and I suspect that salvaging the
>> Debian package is what will be required.
>>
>
> Added a note on the bug[1] mentioning an MR with cherrypicked/adapted a
> patch set from upstream branch/fork that adds pcre2 support. Hopefully
> an NMU can be considered.
>
Seems I forgot about the link :P
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=999962#23
>>>> BTW, are you subscribed to this mailing list? In Debian we
>>>> conventionally don't CC people on mailing lists, even though we do CC
>>>> people on bugs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm subscribed. Feel free to directly reply to the mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
Reply to: