Hi László,
thanks again for your always prompt response. This is really appreciated.
Am Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 07:34:01AM +0100 schrieb László Böszörményi (GCS):
> > The bug reports were the result of a rather
> > broad scan for packages with long-standing upstream updates and missing
> > Salsa repositories. It just happened to affect some of your packages.
> Yup, I have several packages where upstream is dead, upgrading would
> need a lot of effort, etc. I keep them in the archives, even if
> usually I think I should have asked for their removal.
I've checked popcon before sending the bug reports of the two related
packages. Its not amazing but I've seen packages with less usage that
make sense inside Debian. Its hard for somebody who is not the
maintainer to ask for removal. If you think its better to remove it
and file a RoM bug yourself this is a different situation.
> Salsa and the appearance of team maintenance may just shadow that a
> package is no longer maintained for some reason. Would you find odb if
> it's already on Salsa?
Well, my query contain some "not on Salsa" condition so this would not
have been in the result set. Based on my experience in the Bug of the
Day initiative I simply made the experience that packages in Salsa are
easier accessible for newcomers. Since this belongs to my goals as DPL
I'm seeking for sensible ways to involve newcomers. I do not think that
this specific set of packages is contributing to this goal much. Its
rather about consistency inside the whole distribution.
> > What I could imagine doing in any case is:
> > * migrating the current packaging to Salsa in its present state,
> > * documenting the upstream changes and the build2 transition in a
> > README.source, so that any interested contributor has the relevant
> > information readily available.
> That sounds viable. If you have time for this, please do so.
Thank you for the permission. I will do so once time permits.
Thanks again for your cooperation
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
