> Introduction of a binary package in another source package is not a reason > for rejection, as I understand it: That sounds like the only way to, well, > doing > exactly that: Move a binary package to being maintained in another source > package.
Sure, but I would expect at least removal of the older source package from unstable first, or explicit consent from the previous maintainer to the overtake. > So please go ahead and take over maintenance of these packages (if also > ok with the previous maintainer, Andrej Shadura, obviously), just make > sure that you take over all of it, not only the library parts. I pushed the changes to debcargo-conf's current packaging of usvg/resvg needed to build the binaries to my personal repo: https://salsa.debian.org/NoisyCoil/debcargo-conf/-/commits/usvg-resvg. As far as the binaries are concerned, packaging-wise, only the manpages are missing (and proper d/changelog entries). C-library packages are not included as they are not built by neither package (nor they could be within debcargo-conf IIUC). Still, as I've already expressed in my last emails, I am not interested in maintaining the binaries. If Andrej, or tarzeau (both in cc), or really anyone else, is interested in doing so, they can just signal their interest and I'll add them to the Uploaders, add the manpages and re-upload the packages (again, through to my sponsor). Otherwise I see no value in re-uploading packages no-one is actually interested in maintaining, all the more if they were already removed from testing.
