On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:10PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > I can't find a reference right now, but I seem to recall that one of > the Alioth admins pointed out that mailing lists specifically for > package/bug tracking purposes (i.e. not used for discussion) shouldn't > be migrated to lists.d.o. I don't know what other alternatives there > are, however. I haven't really kept up with the Alioth > migration/deprecation as you can probably tell. :)
I thought there a difference between package-specific mailing lists and groups that maintain a large number of packages (e.g., python, X, etc.) But I could be wrong. I thought the lists.alioth.debian.org was only guaranteed to be around for a year, but we do have time to figure out what to do. > Well, the shared library being split into a separate package was > intentional (#793863), but having never updated the package name is > not (I must have overlooked this somehow...). I wonder how I never got > any bug reports about this, because in theory that should mean that > android-libf2fs-utils (src:android-platform-system-extras) is flat out > broken (I never initiated any transitions or binNMU requests for > android-platform-system-extras after f2fs-tools updates). I think the right thing to do is to create separate packages for libf2fs and libf2fs_format. (And the separate -dev packages, of course). They have different so version numbers, and so there is no guarantee they will be both incremented in a particular release. I'll work on that as part of the f2fs-tools 1.11 release. - Ted