Bug#1067708: new upstream versions as NMU vs. xz maintenance

[krygorin4545]

>> Very much *not* a fan of NMUs doing large changes such as
>> new upstream versions.

Instead of having a policy debate over who is proper to do this upload, can 
this just be fixed? The named maintainer hasn't done an upload in 5 years.

Fedora considered this a serious bug and fixed it weeks ago 
(). Fixing a valgrind 
break across many apps throughout Debian is the priority here.

> Most of the changes are part of current -2. Ppl complainted about valgrind 
> reports which are addressed in the new upstream version.

As Sebastian said, most of the changes are already part of 5.6.0-2. So its a 
much smaller change than the NMU that brought in 5.6.0.

Bug#1067708: new upstream versions as NMU vs. xz maintenance

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 26 March 2024 23:11:19 CET, Thorsten Glaser  wrote:
>Very much *not* a fan of NMUs doing large changes such as
>new upstream versions.

Most of the changes are part of current -2. Ppl complainted about valgrind 
reports which are addressed in the new upstream version.

>But this does give us the question, what’s up with the
>maintenance of xz-utils? 

I NMU maintained it for the last few years. Given that I consider taking over 
maintenance officially. I poked Jonathan about this.

>Same as with the lack of security
>uploads of git, which you also maintain, are you active?
>Are you well?
>
>bye,
>//mirabilos

-- 
Sebastian

Bug#1067708: new upstream versions as NMU vs. xz maintenance

[Thorsten Glaser]

Very much *not* a fan of NMUs doing large changes such as
new upstream versions.

But this does give us the question, what’s up with the
maintenance of xz-utils? Same as with the lack of security
uploads of git, which you also maintain, are you active?
Are you well?

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
-- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL