Re: Comments regarding wavesurfer_1.8.5-4_amd64.changes
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 10:21:20PM +0000, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> despite you claim this package has been removed without providing good
> arguments, I don't think reintroducing it as it was just prior of its
> removal is a good choice. I noticed upstream seems active, so why don't
> provide updated version instead of an old one?
> Also, why listing QA as maintainer? I don't think this would attract
> more contributors as it has been orphaned 18 months before being
> removed. Are you willing to take care of it? Do you know other will?
There's a whole bunch of things wrong with the packaging at present
(cf. lintian output :), which I do intend to fix. I also did notice
there is a new upstream (since there was also a bug about that before
the removal #608188), which I also plan to look at.
Leaving QA in the Maintainer field was an oops, I had planned to properly
adopt it, but just made the minimal changes to get it back through NEW
for now (partly to make your job of reviewing it easier) -- and somehow
forgot to change control instead of just the changelog. I can push a
new upload with that fixed asap just to make it clear.
I'm definitely interested in keeping it looked after, we have a lot of
users of it (who almost surely don't submit popcon results), and for
what we need it for it really is a "best of breed" at present. We've
tried all the alternatives and nothing else works as well. The software
itself works fine, I've had no bugs to report against it, and had no idea
that it was even orphaned until I updated a sid box and saw it had been
So yes, I'm not just dumping it back in the archive and hoping someone
else will take care of it, I am quite prepared to take responsibility
for it if nobody else wants to do that more than I do. The current
upload was just to get it back through NEW again, and have the existing
working package still available for users while I test the new upstream
and clean up the rest of the outstanding issues in it.
Thanks for being diligent and asking about that before processing it :)