Re: Packages needing to be tested
Am Fre, 08 Dez 2000 13:29:05 schrieb Robert Bihlmeyer:
> Cord Beermann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > jove's last Upstream-version is dated 1994 or 95.
> > the Maintainer (Loic Prylli) hasn't moved sind 1998. (see also mailx)
> > the Package isn't orphaned or something, else i would apply
> > as New Maintainer to take it over, as i like that editor very
> > much.
> Perhaps you should apply anyway - you should be able to do NMUs at
> least if the Maintainer is inresponsive. Plus you could do porter-NMUs
> for the Hurd.
Plus we have one more Debian maintainer who cares about the Hurd.
And packages can be adopted when the maintainer is inresponsive for
a long time.
> > Ob-Hurd: it would be nice if your list could be enhanced, so that
> > the reports about compiling (or not) with the changes could be
> > documented. (this also avoids double work.)
> Yeah, additional information (version x compiles cleanly; patch from
> bug #32345 needed; not useful for Hurd; etc.) would be fine.
Well, the complete documentation of the status of the Hurd port
is generated by the autobuilder. The only problem that the autobuilder
is down at the moment.
People interested in software doing this should look at
which I wrote exactly to solve autobuilding the Debian packages
for the Hurd, but can be used for other autobuilding as well.
> ATM, your best bet is to check out the bugs of a package. Porting
> changes should end up in the BTS, ideally under a heading that
> contains "Hurd" somewhere...
I use to put [hurd] in the subject.