Hi, thanks for your questions. :) I will reply your questions, in the reverse order.
> This is a native package, so really "Adopting" it also means taking care > of the (little) code there is inside. Therefore, turning it into a 3.0 > (quilt) package is most probably not an appropriate action. Change native to quilt probably was a mistake due to my lack of experience. Thanks for pointing it out, I will read more for better understand the difference between quilt and native. > You wrote to the O bug, but without turning it into an ITA [...] hummm... Another mistake due to the lack of experience. I thought that reply with the ITA in the subject changes it, sorry. My mistake. Could you give me some hints here? > [...] importantly without writing *why* you'd like to adopt such odd package. > I'm honestly curious: I'm kind of biased here as I was the one massaging > it into shape when it needed it last year. I will try to be brief with my 'why'. First of all, I am interested in software distribution and I really like to understand about Debian package structure. My first contact with xml-core came from my attempt to adopt dia package, wherein the field "Depends on packages which need a new maintainer" pointed out some packages, one of them is xml-core. I decided to better understand xml-core. In the end, it sounds to me a good opportunity to learn more about a native package and at the same time reduce one of the dependencies without a maintainer (I am totally aware about the responsibility to maintain a package). > And all in all, I personally doubt the usefulness of doing an upload > only bumping std-ver (to a version that is not even the last) and just > tweaking a couple of other fields. I did what my current knowledge in Debian package enabled me to do. When I looked at the xml-core files, I did not find anything that I can improve, however, if there is any problem with it I will be glad to put effort to improve it.
