On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jan C. Nordholz <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
> that is a different matter that doesn't void my RFS. libdnet has quite a > number of reverse dependencies in the archive and is in good shape (our > bugtracker is effectively empty, and the upstream tracker doesn't contain > any serious issues either), so I think it would be beneficial to get a > recent version uploaded no matter what the upstream status is. nmap even > uses its own embedded copy of the library. Quite. That sounds like a bug in nmap, looks like it hasn't been filed yet, please file one. nmap also looks like it could use a new maintainer too. > I'm willing to do maintainer work, i.e. sync bugs with the upstream tracker > (maybe he'll reappear one day) and keep the package free from compiler > errors on our release architectures (which is enough work in itself with > our lib renaming stunt), I'll even fix occasional bugs myself - but I can > tell you up front that I don't have enough time to kill to assume upstream > responsibility. Hmm, OK. Getting added to the upstream project doesn't mean you become responsible for it, but does mean you can push bugfixes from Debian upstream in the absense of the upstream maintainer, which saves other distros from needing to cherry-pick patches from Debian. That lib renaming stunt seems like one of the worse technical decisions made in Debian, perhaps upstream can be persuaded to change too. > Would you please reconsider uploading the package? I haven't had a look at your package yet, just wanted to make sure you consider the upstream aspect of maintaining packages. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
