Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-cr...@lists.debian.org, s...@debian.org, np.bam...@gmail.com
I have forked lwm so that my work can be reviewed: https://salsa.debian.org/npbamber/lwm If this is approved please grant me permission so I can keep the repository up to date. I am happy with my work here, but I can list somethings potential sponsors might appreciate being pointed out: #920091 - adoption: I have been through the Debian induction process about a decade ago. So I know what packaging involves even if I have things to learn or relearn. My life is more stable now than then, so I am not going to take on long term commitments I can't handle. I will review packages before trying to adopt them. If I don't feel comfortable with this commitment I will just do a QA upload, not touch the package or perhaps even discuss removal of a package. #1031650 - I fixed the trivial typo. However I strongly believe a minimalist window manager should strongly advertise how to start an xterm as it can be hard to get started otherwise. So I made this clear in the control description. #1051010 - I have done what I feel most appropriate here. The first part (systemd environment) is easy to test. The second part - portals - are a bit harder. My journey there is documented on the bug report. If this is not adequate I need some advice. Cross compilation: I had to undertake radical surgery here. The general strategy was to start with upstream's backup makefile and make it as debhelper compliant as possible. However on the opertaing table the patient went through numerous crises. Like flags not being passed onto the compiler (notably dropping hardening.) I checked the old build logs against the new build logs. There were decisions to be made. I was biased to caution but I sought strategiclaly not to get in debhelper's way. All these issues are now resolved. It was quite hard to know how to describe this in the changelog. Lintian: the only overrides are because upstream is inactive and I see no point in contacting them. Rules-Requires-Root: It clearly does not require root to build and I have marked it as such. However the Lintian explanation for this warning is a little bit scary. I did try it both before and after making the change and the only diffoscope difference appeared to be an 8 year difference in certain timestamps. I found this pretty odd. I really appreciate any time and effort you can put into this. Nicholas
