Re: Helping busy maintainers
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> writes:
> Werner Heuser <wehe@debian.org>
> Werner mentioned to me that he is moving. He has 2 RC bugs which
> have to be fixed.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=wehe@debian.org
I had a look at #190685, it is pretty obvious to fix (obsolete GCC
switch). I have prepared a NMU but I can't test it because the package
is a library for some obscure hardware I never heard of, so I won't
upload it. I'll send a patch to the bug.
I'm wondering whether it would not be easier to drop this package
entirely, given that:
- it has two FTBFS bugs opened (one severity important, the other
serious) which were never responded to even though one of them is
dated July 10, 2002.
- the package has had only one upload overall and is in pretty bad
shape, I get the following lintian warnings and errors:
W: libkemo-m104 source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.5.2
E: libkemo-m1041: sharedobject-in-library-directory-not-actually-a-shlib
usr/lib/libkemo-m104.so.1
W: libkemo-m1041: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
W: libkemo-m104-dev: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
... and the versioning scheme looks fishy (version 1-1?).
- the library doesn't seem to be used by any program in the
distribution:
$ apt-cache rdepends libkemo-m1041
libkemo-m1041
Reverse Depends:
libkemo-m104-dev
$ apt-cache rdepends libkemo-m104-dev
libkemo-m104-dev
Reverse Depends:
$
Martin, what do you think?
--
,''`.
: :' : Romain Francoise <rfrancoise@debian.org>
`. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
`-
Reply to: