[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#887595: RFS: xft/2.3.2-1.1 [NMU]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:58:00AM +0000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> On Monday, 22 January 2018 7:49 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > IMO this is nothing that warrants a NMU, or an upload on its own.
> Sure, perhaps not in the current RFS form. That said, I'm hoping we can 
> reach some agreement on releasing a new version of xft. Here are some 
> reasons why.
> 1. Cyril Brulebois is listed in Uploaders, but he hasn't been part of 
>    Debian XFS for some years now.

Did you ask him if he still is interested in maintaining the package?

> 2. The VCS URL in the Package Tracker no longer functions, due to the 
>    recent migration to Debian Salsa.

That is unrelated. alioth is still working. However this is another sign
that the package is no longer in active maintaince.
I suggest to mail kibi and just ask him whether it is and maybe (if you
want) whether you could add yourself as Co-Maintainer.

(You maybe also want to file a bug the the repository is defunc.)

> 3. The package standards version is 3.9.2 ("ancient").
> 4. The lack of Multi-Arch awareness blocks multi-arch support for 
>    libpango1.0-dev and libfontforge-dev. These packages, in turn, 
>    block Wine.

Thanks for the explanation, but then this should be documented in the bug and
the severity increased (IMHO to important).

> 5. As for fixing other bugs, #843837 should be tagged 'wontfix', 
>    since it is an upstream issue (fixed some time ago). I don't know 
>    enough about the other three bugs to comment.

How is it fixed upstream? The bug has no info...
Looking for upstream... It seems that there is no newer release
at the site mentioned in d/copyright.

> Marking libxft-dev Multi-Arch: same is particularly important to me,
> so I'm hoping you can update the package with the above points 
> in mind.
> Thanks for your email.

May I recommend to more documentation to the BTS... This not only helps
assessing the situation but also might help later people taking a look
at the same bugs -- to avoid duplicate work.

Without the informatiion in this RFS this bug would be clearly a wontfix,
but when #884176 is severity important, this might be in a scope of a
NMU. But please check with kibi ask asked above...

Remove the moreinfo tag when ready.

Thanks for contributing to Debian!


> --
> Hugh McMaster

Reply to: