Re: omake failures (#510919)
On 07-01-2009, Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net> wrote:
>> 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends
>> are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one.
>
> Has someone any news from Mike Furr? The last mail from him on a Debian
> mailing-list dates back to Feb. 2008 with a signature suggesting that he
> was lacking time for Debian². Note that the Maintainer field of omake is
> set to "Mike Furr", and not the mailing-list, so that we don't receive
> directly any bug report related to it. Moreover, I don't understand why
> there is an additional -3 in the version number. BTW, there is also a
> new upstream version (but it is probably not the right time to import
> it...).
>
> I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with
> at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless
> otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4.
>
For what is important, I totally agree with hijacking the package to
git/d-o-m. I think Mike Furr is MIA for now, just explain that we hijack
the package waiting mfurr to come back.
I do however disagree with point 4. OMake is used by some people, like
Jane Street, so there is at least some user around. Unfortunately, I
don't have time/interest to fix the bug. Maybe an intermediate "just
remove for lenny" should be enough.
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: