On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 02:52:27PM +1000, Jonathon Love wrote:
> so the advice i received regarding the name was that i must get it renamed
> upstream[1]. i don't think this will be possible because:
>
> - upstream is an established package, present in PYPI and macports
> - the developer is MIA
this "developer is MIA" should be a good reason by itself. It's never
great to introduce in the archive a software where the development
stopped.
> (additionally, the official Protocol Buffers 3 supports Python 3 [2] and
> should be coming to debian soon[3]. as the main point of this package was to
> allow the use of protocol buffers with Python 3, this reduces the need for
> this package).
Agree.
Also, introducing both would mean having in the archive 2 things that do
the exact same thing.
> hence, i propose to withdraw the package, the RFS and the ITP.
This seems the better solution, yes.
> also happy to
> proceed, the work is basically done, but i can't see a way to make it work.
For all the reason you exponed, I think the best way is to withdraw the
package.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature