Bug#950198: restinio
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 01:22:29PM +0200, Sébastien Delafond wrote:
> It was perfectly clear the first time, and this is where we can agree to
> disagree.
Dear Sébastien.
Yes, lets agree.
> Starting on this project I had a couple of goals.
Towards the original goal (getting Jami into Debian), I have reworded
the cmake patch description and improved the package based on your
proposed changes.
- cleanup rules, add the MULTIARCH bit
- more on d/copyright
- cmake dependency
- d/watch
> As I don't intend to maintain restinio in the long run, I don't feel the
> need to argue this any further, and will happily defer to Alexandre's
> opinion.
I acknowledge that running the tests is of importance to you. I will
certainly take that into consideration.
To proceed, we need restinio in NEW. If you (or anybody else follwing
this conversation) wishes to help, please review and/or sponsor [1].
Looking at Alexandre's Jami package, I infer that small(er) tarballs are
in his interest. I do not actually know, and if it helps, I am not going
to decide how the 0.6.6 package will look like.
best regards
felix
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/felixs-guest/restinio/-/tree/master-0.6.4
Reply to: