Re: %20Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Benjamin BAYART <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> So here was my practical conclusion: I did send a bug report, useless
>>> during months, and that bug report was used to argue that the package
>>> broken and unkaintained and to remove it. Conclusion: reporting on a
>>> un-maintained package is something dangerous.
>>Hm, what was the severity of the bugs you are thinking about? Where the
>>packages removed due to a couple of unfixed important bugs?
> There was two kinds of bugs in the package:
> - the one I reported, with a patch (segfault on some cases introduced by
> modern TeX uses)
> - bugs about Debian (version of the standards, version of dh_*, etc)
> Of course, the bugs about Debian were regarded as very serious, and were
> the reason for being a candidate to removal. From a user point of view,
> it sounds like crazy.
I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly, and which package was a
candidate for removal. dvidvi had a debhelper-related bug (#168387),
but this was not just about a version, it failed to build from source.
This is something we cannot tolerate in a stable release.
An outdated standards version doesn't make a package a candidate for
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)