On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Urgency is not quite a boolean. One of the patches fixes a regression in > zlib. It was introduced more than two years ago. There was lots of time > to fix it in time for the trixie release. That is not what has happened.
Which one is a regression? I can't see anything in either report that indicates a regression. I'm guessing it's #1050995 (zlib FTCBFS: minizip build performed for build architecture) but the minizip build isn't new so that would be surprising to me, I wasn't aware that cross building had ever worked. > The second patch did not elicit any reply either. As a result, the > package looked unmaintained to me and I ended up fixing it. How long > should I have been waiting for the slightest maintainer reaction before > NMUing in your opinion? I think from my perspective the thing that I'd be looking for would be something that indicates there's some actual demand for the results rather than a mass check of the archive for something that would be nice to have. Unless there's some other reason to upload the package (eg, a new release) I tend to go through the cross archive things once per release. My experience being on the submitting end of bulk stuff is that communication is workload and often pretty noisy. I think the cross build request managed to get dropped because the patch mixed in other cleanups which made it confusing what it was doing. One of the big bits is that the random change to -lz is I *think* there because almost all native build environments will end up working due to the host having a zlib while cross build (especially bootstrap) environments are more likely to be smaller so happen to show an issue which is masked. Not sure what happened with the udeb request TBH, it's possible I was just short on time when I looked at things, or the thing with the BTS sorting things with patches separately tripped me up. That was a definite mistake, sorry about that.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
