Hi Joe,
I realize you've been libpst's upstream for a while and the Debian
maintainer before that, so I hope this doesn't sound ungrateful, but
don't you think it might be a good idea incorporating the changes made
by the suggested fork[0]? Are there reasons not to do it?
I prepared some packages at[1] and it seems to solve at least one big
issue of working with newer Outlook 2003 files (with the bonus that 2003
folders with special characters seem to get generated correctly).
Hopefully this doesn't come off as me trying to steal your package or
anything, but if you don't have anything against it I'd upload it in the
coming days (but not before hearing from you, of course). Whether this
would be an NMU, an adoption or co-maintenance is also up to you.
Noteworthy changes:
- build libpst{,-dev,-dbg}
- rename readpst's binary package to pst-utils: since we now build
libpst, and the package includes more utilities than just "readpst", I
felt a rename was in order.
The package is so simple you can certainly review it in a couple of minutes.
Cheers
PS.: Another less elegant option would be uploading the fork with a
different source-name, in case you still wish to keep developing your
version further.
[0] http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst
[1] git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/libpst.git
--
Leo "costela" Antunes
[insert a witty retort here]
