Bug#747438: RFS: ckeditor/4.3.5+dfsg1-1 [RC]
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, bastien ROUCARIES
> <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Package: sponsorship-requests
>> Severity: important
>>
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ckeditor"
>>
>> * Package name : ckeditor
>> Version : 4.3.5+dfsg1-1
>> Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream]
>> * License : GPL-2+ or MPL-1.1+ or LGPL-2.1+
>> Section : web
>>
>> It builds those binary packages:
>>
>> ckeditor - text editor for internet
>>
>> To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:
>>
>> http://mentors.debian.net/package/ckeditor
>>
>>
>> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
>>
>> dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ckeditor/ckeditor_4.3.5+dfsg1-1.dsc
>>
>> More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com.
>>
>> Changes since the last upload:
>>
>> * New upstream release (Closes: #741337).
>> * Upgrade debian/copyright in order to use uscan
>> automatic repack of non free file.
>> * Add myself as maintainer.
>
> This package isn't orphaned, and the current maintainer doesn't seem
> to be MIA according to mia-query, so unless the previous maintainer
> approves of this, this would be considered a hostile takeover. Perhaps
> consider a minimal-change NMU to fix whatever RC bugs currently affect
> the package, if the maintainer is unresponsive right now?
According to :
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742990#48
It agree so no hostile takeover. BTW change are so massive that NMU is
not suitable.
BTW the lintian warning is spurious and I plan to fix on the lintian
side (I am the lintian maintainer).
Bastien
>> * Manually build ckeditor.js.
>> * Build from git in order to avoid sourceless file (Closes: #742990).
>> * Bug fix: "missing adapters/jquery.js file", thanks to Jérémy Lal
>> (Closes: #666167).
>>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
Reply to: