Re: omake failures (#510919)
Sylvain Le Gall <gildor@debian.org> writes:
> 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
On that note could we get the current omake into experimental?
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: