On 31/01/2022 03:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
I am not the adressee here, but taking the liberty to respond anyway as it fits: I am an upstream maintainer and Debian user. I'd be very interested in helping out with this packaging. As a full disclosure: I will keep directing users reaching us (upstream) to use our own apt repo, because the highly outdated (by design) packages debian stable, which also aren't actively maintained (as in bugfixes backported), provide a poorer experience to users. However the package exists, so I'd love to help make it better.Hi Félix and Aloïs,Aloïs Micard <[email protected]> writes:On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:10:44 +0100 =?utf-8?B?RsOpbGl4?= Sipma <[email protected]> wrote: Version 1.18.0 has been uploaded on testing, I will take a look at the amount of work needed for a bullseye-backport, but I'm pretty sure the magnitude of work will be consequent.As you know, I've also been working on this :-) My three questions are: Would you like to help maintain the backport? Would you like to start now, or wait for 1.18.6? How would you like to divide up the work?
I have dabbled in some packaging, but with emphasis on dabbled (mostly bugs, few small patches). I did provide a few patches for important problems on syncthing before bullseye, and have a branch with a lot more. However response times were pretty slow and when I once did a PR directly, I somehow didn't follow the right packaging flow (I looked at some team documentation). Basically at this point I am willing to invest time in the syncthing package, but as a non-DD/DM I need a DD/DM that wants me to do that and is willing to tell me how they want my contributions. As in how should the source/git be organised. My personal preference would be git only (what tree/source/patch format?), but I am willing to send patches or do other stuff if that's preferred.
And I am missing Alexandre Viau in this email discourse so far - he is the one doing most of the work on Syncthing so far. And thus it's probably mainly him who needs to express in what form I or any other contributor could/should chip in. Thus sending this to him too.
Please let me know your thoughts and whether what I wrote made any sense :) Best, Simon
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
