Re: Packages marked as testing auto-removel due to bug#999962

[Manphiz <manphiz@gmail.com>]

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.

>>> 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
>

-- 
Manphiz