Hi Peter,
Thank you so much for your reply and the helpful reminder!
I fully agree that it would be much better to keep mdk and mdk-doc
maintained in sync.
Among the two packages, mdk-doc is definitely easier for me to start with,
and I am also willing to take over the main mdk package as well.
However, I currently need to gain a deeper understanding of the mdk
source code
and its packaging details before I can take full responsibility for it
confidently.
So here is my plan:
1. I will first adopt and maintain mdk-doc as planned (bug #1122513).
2. Meanwhile, I will take time to study the mdk package thoroughly.
3. Once I am familiar enough with mdk, I will take over its
maintainership too,
so that both packages can be properly kept in sync.
Thanks again for your work and guidance!
Best regards,
何庆 Ching He
On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:59:35 +0200 Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 09:55:14PM +0800, 何庆 Ching He wrote:
> > Hi, Peter
> >
> > I would like to adopt the mdk-doc package (bug #1122513).
> > I am interested in maintaining this package for Debian.
> >
> > Please let me know if there are any things I should be aware of.
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I somehow missed your previous message :/
>
> It's great that you want to take over maintainership; thanks!
> Just one small thing that maybe I should have mentioned when
> I filed the bug: it might be a bit weird if different people
> maintained mdk and mdk-doc :) Usually such pairs of packages
> are uploaded in sync. However, it is not really unheard of, so
> it's all right if you want to do that.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> G'luck,
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Pentchev [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
> PGP key: https://www.ringlet.net/roam/roam.key.asc
> Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
