Bug#1067525: RFS: runit/2.1.2-59 -- system-wide service supervision
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit":
* Package name : runit
Version : 2.1.2-59
Upstream contact : Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
* URL : http://smarden.org/runit/
* License : CC0-1.0, BSD-3-clause, GPL-3+
* Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit
Section : admin
The source builds the following binary packages:
runit - system-wide service supervision
runit-run - service supervision (systemd and sysv integration)
getty-run - runscripts to supervise getty processes
runit-init - system-wide service supervision (as init system)
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/runit/
Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this
command:
dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/runit/runit_2.1.2-59.dsc
Git repo:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit/-/tree/next?ref_type=heads
Changes since the last upload:
runit (2.1.2-59) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* upload to unstable
* d/copyright: update years
* d/watch: use https instead of http
* lintian: update overrides for runit
* Revert "d/rules: undo changelog trimming for runit"
* update-service: add bash-completion
* cpsv: update manpage
About the getty-run.NEWS in a previous RFS(#1057098):
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:06:46 +0100 Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> wrote:
> You've misunderstood me with NEWS file (but this is not a stopper for
> the upload.)
>
> What I meant is that the NEWS file is that old that it should be
> removed. (Debhelper just pointed me to the file, even if it did
> not correctly disagnose the issue)
> This is even more correct if debhelper decided to strip out that
> version from d/changelog anyways, users will not get this NEWS
> files displayed, and the information in it shouldn't be relveant
> anymore.
> So my suggestion would be to just rm it.
I prefer not to remove this for now, the info inside the file are
relevant for me (as maintainer) since I would like to remove the
links in getty-run.links in the future (they are kind of a policy
violation) but I face the same issue as Dmitry..
Regards,
Lorenzo
Reply to: