control: severity 810470 important control: severity 810392 important control: severity 810396 important control: severity 810400 important control: severity 810405 important control: severity 810426 important control: severity 810430 important control: severity 810432 important control: severity 810438 important control: severity 810439 important control: severity 810444 important control: severity 810447 important control: severity 810458 important control: severity 810459 important control: severity 810461 important control: severity 810465 important control: severity 1124712 important
Hi Tobias, On 2026-03-21 10:15, Tobias Frost wrote: > Ping? > > What is your take on this, Aurelien (as said, you are the maintainer > and it is in your authority to e.g lower the severity again, especially > as Jermey has not answer the request to clarify.) > > Personally I find it very frustating that a package of mine have been > broken for no obvious reason - yes, libusb is old, but it works and has > no security issues, but some (nice) programs that cannot with > reasonable efforts ported to the newer version. > > Aurelien, I over to take over the package, let me know. I currently have not time to help porting packages to libusb 1.0. And I haven't seen any work from Jeremy besides bumping the severity. Therefore let's downdgrade the severity of the corresponding bugs to important. I might revert that to serious once the list of affected package is much smaller. Actually raising the severity has already helped to make some packages to switch to libusb 1.0 and led to the removal of some unmaintained packages from the archive. > (Bundling libusb0.1 in individual packages isn't really with the Debian > spirit, I'd hate it to do that, but at the moment it seems this is my > only choice.) Yes, I agree this is way worse. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://aurel32.net
