Bug#410401: scheme48: Please package new upstream version
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:05:54AM +1000, Trent Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:37:39PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:43:41AM +1100, Trent Buck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:15:01PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>>> As such, scheme48 is mostly orphaned in Debian. Do you want to
>>>> adopt the Scheme48 package?
>>> I'd be happy to, (...). The only problem is...
>>> ...I'm not a DD, and Jorgen was my sponsor. So I haven't bothered
>>> to find a new one yet (...)
>> What's the situation? I intended to sponsor your, but as my failure
>> to do any step in that direction in several months show, it will
>> not happen in a reasonable timeframe. Have you looked for another
>> (You are welcome to take scsh, too, if you are interested.)
> I'm happy to take over s48 maintenance. I can probably maintain scsh
> as well, but I don't have the time to "clean up" the diff.gz (e.g. to
> use quilt).
> Features that I have ready for (almost) immediate upload to Debian are:
> - scsh 0.6.7
That is already in Debian, so I don't see what you mean there. You
mean an upload just changing Maintainer and/or Uploader lines?
> I'm also reluctant to upload s48 1.6 because it *will* break slime48
> in Debian. On the other hand, slime48 isn't available for Debian, and
> I suppose anyone using slime48 can always install the Etch package or
> compile s48 1.3 by hand, outside of dpkg.
IMHO, we also cannot stay frozen on s48 1.3 forever because slime48 is
not following and never will. If you think slime48 is that important,
then at most do two parallel packages of 1.3 and "latest", but I
wouldn't bother in your shoes - just latest.
> How about I upload the work I've already done to mentors.debian.net,
> but mark it as no-sponsor-needed? I'll try to do that this week, but
> I'll hold off any other action until I hear back from you.
I don't think you understood me correctly: I will not be a reliable
sponsor for the months to come. You need to find another sponsor. So
tagging them no-sponsor-need doesn't seem a good idea to me.