Hi Ian, Am Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 04:44:30PM +0000 schrieb Ian Jackson: > So, thanks.
Thank you for confirming. > > While I got the hint "I'm sure there are other parts > > of Debian that would benefit much more from your efforts." > > these open RC bugs ... continuously > > attract attention and it would be easier to clean up either > > by fixing or removing the package. > > Obviously I agree that a focus on RC bugs is a good thing. (But I > would also encourage a quick wider look at any package before deciding > to try to work on it!) Definitely. Its just distracting to find candidates which are no-ops. I guess we mean the same. > > and source format 3.0 bugs > > Here, you also mention "source format 3.0 bugs". > > This suggests that there is still an ongoing campaign to try to > deprecate source format 1.0. IMO this is misguided. Ohhh, I simply have seen quite a lot of NMUs changing from source format 1.0 to 3.0. I'm not personally hunting for those - at least as long as I can assume that the maintainer is active. When we talk about orphaned packages I would fix bugs reported about this. In the specific case of this package which has an open RFA bug this condition seems to be fulfilled. > If you are aware of resources which seem to give the impression that > converting packages to 3.0 is always an improvement, or that it is > a good idea to bother an active maintainer about changing to 3.0, > please would you let me know so that we can have that clarified. I was just mentioning since I've seen those NMUs. I do not remember from when these where and I'm to lazy to seek for these. My focus is on RC bugs. Thanks a lot for the clarification. Kind regards Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
