Re: Bug#948087: future of aufs in Debian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Dear all,
I have create a RFH since I have currently no time due to personal issue
s:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963191
I hope somebody can help with the maintaining.
Best,
Jan
Am 26.05.20 um 16:33 schrieb Jan Luca Naumann:
> Dear Peter,
>
> I am in general still active but due to private stuff I was quite
> bad maintaining aufs the last months, I am really sorry. I will try
> to take a look into the package at the weekend. Additionally, I
> will create a RFH bug, maybe somebody wants to help me so there is
> no single point of failure in the future.
>
> Best, Jan
>
> On 26.05.20 15:18, peter green wrote:
>> The aufs package last saw a maintainer upload in September 2019
>> and was last-updated (by a NMU) in October 2019. It has had
>> broken build-dependencies in testing for half a year now (since
>> Linux 5.3.9-3 migrated to testing in November 2019).
>>
>> According to dak rm the aufs source-package has two
>> reverse-dependencies, aufs-tools and fsprotect neither of which
>> has any reverse-dependencies.
>>
>> Adrian filed a rc bug in November 2019 which received no
>> maintainer response, however the package was not autoremoved from
>> testing due to aufs and aufs-tools being considered a "key
>> packages" due to high popcon. This popcon actually seems to be
>> growing in both absolute and percentage terms. I presume the high
>> popcon is due to some deriviative (hence debian-derivatives and
>> debian-live in cc) using aufs in their live image builds (as far
>> as I can tell debian's own live images seem to use overlayfs
>> instead nowadays).
>>
>> aufs does seem to still be maintained upstream with upstream
>> claiming support for Linux 5.6.
>>
>> According to contributors.debian.net Jan Luca Naumann (the aufs
>> maintainer) was last active in September 2019. Jan: are you
>> still around? and if so do you still intend to maintain the aufs
>> package? if not is someone else going to step up to the plate? or
>> should these packages be removed from testing?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=W+Dn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: