[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Restoring the removed e16 package

The Wanderer writes ("Restoring the removed e16 package"):
> I'm not positive whether this properly belongs here; if it would be more
> appropriate on another mailing list, just let me know which one.
> As e17 does not constitute a suitable replacement for e16 for my
> purposes, I have an interest in seeing e16 continue to be available
> via Debian. What would I need to do to get this package added back
> in?

Find someone (preferably a team) to be the maintainers, prepare a
suitable package, get someone to sponsor it, and reopen all the bugs
which were closed by the removal.

> I would be willing to assume maintainership of the e16 Debian
> package if that is what it would take, although I do not know
> whether I have the skill to be able to do a good job of it.

If you aren't confident of your ability to do this yourself, you
should see if you can find other people to help.

> I am reading the Debian New Maintainers' Guide to educate myself on
> what would be involved with maintaining a package, beyond the
> obvious, and on how to go about getting a package added to
> Debian. However, since this package was previously in the repository
> and has been removed, it seems likely that there would be additional
> considerations beyond those associated with a new package.

Yes.  The new upload should be prepared using the previously-removed
package as a starting point.

> Given the previous removal of this package, the reasons cited for
> that removal, and the (I infer) relative imminence of a new stable
> release, what further requirements and/or deadlines would I need to
> keep in mind as I work on this, and what possible further procedures
> (beyond those in the new-package documentation) would I need to
> follow?

I think it is probably now too late to reintroduce e16 in wheezy.

However your work on e16 probably won't interfere with the wheezy
release so you don't need to do anything special.

The toolchain-related bug seems to be (at least) this one:


Reply to: