Re: Package dropped from testing/unstable: ITP or ITA?

["Robert J. Clay" <rjclay@gmail.com>]

Paul,

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:
> On 11-08-13 13:43, Robert J. Clay wrote:
>>    I figure to reopen that bug but which would best for it to be?  As
>> an ITP, because it isn't currently in unstable or testing?  Or as an
>> ITA, because it had been packaged and is present in oldstable?
>
> As the package is currently not in Debian unstable, I would open a new
> ITP,

    Rather just reopening the original RFA/O bug (603248) as an ITP?


> but please mention the fact that you consider reintroducing a
> package that was in Debian before

    I would do that, regardless of how I labeled it...


> and, if applicable, mention how you fixed the issue that cause it to be removed
> (most of the time removal is not triggered by it being orphaned,

   That I'll need to investigate.  The removal bug (668080) says:
"RoQA; orphaned, unused, dead upstream".   It had been orphaned around
a year at the time it was removed from unstable.  I was using it at
the time;  no clue whom else might have been...<g>  And there are a
number of apps in Debian that don't have an active upstream...

   I'll need to see what it takes to get it working for me again, then
see what's needed for a new package...




-- 
Robert J. Clay
rjclay@gmail.com
jame@rocasa.us