On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 13:50 +0900, notebook wrote: > When I asked for the package source back then, I was referred only to > the debian tarball. I.e. I was not aware of anything else existing. The package source and the upstream source are two different things. When creating a fork of an existing upstream project you should use the source of the existing upstream project. > As my changes are huge and the project has previously been basically > dead, I think it's not worth the effort vs the risk and work effort. There should be almost zero risk since the tarballs are likely identical to the source in CVS. The effort is likely not much, just converting the repo and then exporting and applying all the patches you created. It is also inappropriate to erase the contributions and names of the previous upstream contributors from the git history. > I guess you're talking about Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@debian.org>. I > contacted him 8 months ago without any answer. I infered the mail is > dead or he's too busy with other stuff. But perhaps from member to > member there's a higher success rate :) Hmm, OK. Maybe try him again. > I thought, if all links in the package point to github in the future, > the source forge project becomes obsolete. For Debian purposes yes, but Debian is not the entire Free Software world. Individual users and other redistributors will probably continue to encounter the SourceForge project until someone makes it redirect to your fork of the project. Personally when a project is undermaintained I contribute to and or take over the project instead of forking because it maintains the continuity of the one project in one place instead of proliferating copies of it many different places. https://repology.org/project/gjiten/packages -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part