Bug#1029041: gftp -- X/GTK+ and console FTP client (metapackage)
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:28:05 +0000
Gervase <gervase@group.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Andreas.
>
>> Package: wnpp
>> Severity: normal
>> X-Debbugs-Cc: gftp@packages.debian.org
>> Control: affects -1 + src:gftp
>>
>> I intend to orphan the gftp package. It looked like upstream would
>> migrate to gtk3 and was a bit active, but since then the activity
>> seems
>> to have died off. For users using this, filezilla seems like a
>> reasonable replacement. (Which I too have migrated to).
>
>Until today, I thought I had been using an old gftp GUI. However, I was
>actually using a buggy bareFTP, which was last updated over 6 years ago!
>Therefore, gftp is more up-to-date and it looks like it has got more or
>less the same features.
>
>On upgrading to Bookworm, I was thinking of using a debugged bareFTP.
>But that is out of the question because bareFTP basically no longer
>exists, which I more or less mentioned above. This leaves gftp...! I
>don't want the baggage associated with filezilla.
>
>Therefore, can you tell me exactly what the TECHNICAL problems are which
>prevent including gftp package(s) in Debian Bookworm?
Nothing at all - I orphan it since I don't want to maintain a package
that doesn't migrate to gtk3, and WILL be removed sometime (later or
not). - Unless it is converted to GTK3.
Is there some new release team policy to remove orphaned packages? One
simple way to hinder such removal (if it is valid) would be to take over
maintenance yourself. (But I don't believe there is, please educate me
if there is).
>The gftp "team" have an open github issue 91 (GTK3 Port Progress). The
>initial comments against issue 91 show that there was initial progress
>and a screenshot of the start of the GTK3 porting process.
>
>However, reading further through the comments, I see frustration with
>the GTK3 library, which includes awkward multi-threading. Plus, there
>is lookahead to the current GTK4 (GTK3 is now old, apparently...), where
>things look more ominous.
>
>
>Even if there is no activity in gftp, if it were free of problems, then
>I assume gftp would be packaged into Debian Bookworm...?
>
>Looking at the last comment against issue 19, I see the following two
>paragraphs...
>
>> This branch contains preliminary work to finish the gtk3 port, it's
>> somewhat old, but it can be finished anytime
>> https://github.com/masneyb/gftp/commits/gtktreeview
>
>> In this branch there are some ported patches from the fangq repo that
>> add extra buttons, everything that works is already ported to the
>> upstream repo I think
>> https://github.com/masneyb/gftp/commits/fangq
>
>I assume that the above does not address the technical issues which
>would allow gftp to be included in Debian Bookworm?
>
>If I can, I would like to try to help out.
>
As said, my reasons for in the first stage taking over maintenance when
I did, was that then GTK3 migration seemed to be very much in progress,
but now it seems to have stalled and stopped.
I don't want to maintain a package that don't have any future in Debian
- and packages that depend on gtk2 will be removed sooner or later -
maybe even MUCH later, but still, if they will be removed I have very
little interest in maintaining them, as this means that users WILL have
to find alternatives.
And this of course means I wouldn't have anything at all against anyone
else taking over maintainership - Please do so if you find the package
useful and valuable to maintain - I might even sponsor your uploads if
needed.
/Andreas
Reply to: