[Please keep Kai and me in CC while responding on the list] [Jordi, you're in CC because your are my AM, and I want to convince you of my maintainer abilities ;]
Here is a mail about the status of the doc-rfc-* packages. As anyone knows, those packages have a bunch of bugs opened, some of them being grave (not installable/removable) or policy violation (non-free plus FTBFS). I did some work to try to solve some of them, and I would like to know if you still want to work on this package, or if we should search for another maintainer for them. Here is the list of the bugs: $ querybts -s doc-rfc Querying Debian bug tracking system for reports on src:doc-rfc (Use ? for help at prompts.) 15 bug reports found: Grave functionality bugs - outstanding: 4 reports 1) #111218: Cannot install/remove 2) #111788: doc-rfc-std: dhelp upgrade error 3) #114754: doc-rfc-std: doc-rfc-std doesn't install cleanly 4) #115021: doc-rfc-std: Cannot install properly Serious policy violations - outstanding: 2 reports 5) #92810: doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free 6) #133563: FTBFS: Build failure of doc-rfc on i386 Normal bugs - outstanding: 3 reports 7) #117561: doc-rfc: useless package description 8) #133124: doc-rfc: rfc2822 is in wrong package. 9) #141149: doc-rfc: errors in doc-base files Minor bugs - outstanding: 1 report 10) #124559: doc-rfc: Spelling error in description Wishlist items - outstanding: 5 reports 11) #31383: Glimpseindex of doc-rfc would be nice 12) #74385: doc-rfc: wishlist: I want an rfc tool 13) #116567: doc-rfc-std: /usr/bin/rfc script 14) #119589: doc-rfc-std-proposed: Please include RFC3168 15) #134524: doc-rfc: Data not uptodate In attachement, you will find some patches, along with the following README: >>>>>>>>>>>> begin of README 00-ftbfs.diff: change the right on a script used during the building process to allow its execution (Close: #153563) 05-install-docs.diff: Fix the mess done with install-docs. The solution was easy: simply remove all the hand-made stuff there concerning install-docs, and let dh_installdocs come clear with it. (Close: #111218, #114754, #115021, #155021) 06-no-overwrite.diff: Some install-docs files were shared between various packages. Curiously, this bug was never reported. Do anyone use force-overwrite around here? 10-descriptions.diff: Change the description of packages to help newbies to understand what they contain (closes: #117561). 11-descriptions-typo.diff: Fix a small typo in description (close: #124559). <<<<<<<<<<<< end of README Moreover, using the update-package.sh script existing in the package, both #119589 and #134524 (data outdated) could be closed. Note that I did not try this script, and I'm not sure it really works, but I guess so. So, once we solve all these bugs, only the following stay opened: Serious policy violations - outstanding: 1 report 1) #92810: doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free Normal bugs - outstanding: 2 reports 2) #133124: doc-rfc: rfc2822 is in wrong package. 3) #141149: doc-rfc: errors in doc-base files Wishlist items - outstanding: 3 reports 4) #31383: Glimpseindex of doc-rfc would be nice 5) #74385: doc-rfc: wishlist: I want an rfc tool 6) #116567: doc-rfc-std: /usr/bin/rfc script I have no idea about #92810. I guess we should either move the package to non-free, convince the rfc editor to use a more liberal licence, or convince debian-legal that the used licence is free enough. But since I'm not native speaker, I don't want to swamp into debian-legal to get a consensus about it, and I definitevely need help on this point. #133124 is a bit more puzzling. It seems that the scripts used to split RFCs in packages are somehow broken. I also think that the split could be better done. See #111788 for my analyse of this problem. I have some scripts here to remplace the one found in the package to solve this problem, but they may be not readdy for release yet. And I would prefer not to make such a change without maintainer's approval. #141149 comes from the fact that all doc-base files register html files, but the only rfc distributed in html form is the rfc1941, belonging to doc-rfc-fyi-bcp. I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove the HTML registration from other packages since in the future, more html files could be registered as RFC and since registering non existing files don't seem to break anything. #31383, #74385 and #116567 all ask for an automatic searching tool. It seems that #31383 present a methodology to solve this problem (based on glimpse), but I did not investigate this for now, because I would like to see my first changes adopted before I can go further. So, here is my question for you, Kai, are you willing to work on your package, or do the qa team have to declare you Missing In Action, and hijack your package ? Thanks for your interress, Mt. -- Si les grands esprits se rencontrent, les petits esprits, eux, se cognent.