On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:51:55PM +0100, maxzor wrote: > TL;DR Please consider reopening the following request for packaging : > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818180 You could that yourself. On the other hand, having an RFP doesn't mean anything so reopening it is not useful. If someone wants to package it they could do that with or without the RFP existing. > I believe that the effort of decoupling Skia from the upstream packages > can be worth it. It could to allow more people to hear about the existence > of > the library in the first place, to study its algorithms, > and maybe build upon them. Somebody still needs to do that, and then maintain the package in Debian. > I do not have the rights on the request mail server to unarchive the RFP. I don't think the concept of such rights exists. > <maxzor> Hello again, do you know why skia is not packaged? > <somiaj> maxzor: assuming it meets the DSFG, it is often lack of someone > volunteering to do the work This is correct. > <jkc> maxzor: Didn't you just ask this in #ubuntu? > <maxzor> I did jkc, I was received... strangely > <somiaj> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818180 -- hmm > unsure why that bug was marked as done and archived, but there was an RFP > bug for it a while ago. MAybe they close old RFP bugs if no one steps up > since projects can die and not be needed. Also could be a library not needed > by other things in debian. It was indeed closed due to inactivity, as can be seen in the close email. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature