Bug#836677: pysparse: still worth maintaining?

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Hi Anton,

Following up on your offer for sponsorship. I pushed debian/1.1.1-1 to
the packaging repository after checking the build runs successfully on
debomatic:


http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/pysparse/1.1.1-1/buildlog

This release will also close the current RC affecting this package.

Ghis


On 22/09/16 20:21, Anton Gladky wrote:

Hi Ghis,

thanks for working on the package! Even it is abandoned by
upstream, we have to support it in Debian, because it has
reverse-dependency.

Feel free to ping me, if one need the package sponsoring.

Best regards

Anton


2016-09-22 9:33 GMT+02:00 Ghislain Vaillant :

I have had a look at updating the package to the newest upstream
release and fixing this FTBFS. However, I have got strong concerns as
to whether it is worth keeping this package maintained in the archive:

- The latest release on PyPI [1] is busted (missing files). The issue
was reported [2] but never addressed since.

- Latest activity on the upstream repository is from 2013. By now, I
expected upstream would have fixed the PyPI tarball, at least.

- No Python 3 support. A manual call to 2to3 on the Python sources
allows the build process to run, but fails at the compilation stage.

[1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysparse
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/pysparse/mailman/message/33117282/

Best regards,
Ghis


--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#836677: pysparse: still worth maintaining?

[Anton Gladky]

Hi Ghis,

thanks for working on the package! Even it is abandoned by
upstream, we have to support it in Debian, because it has
reverse-dependency.

Feel free to ping me, if one need the package sponsoring.

Best regards

Anton


2016-09-22 9:33 GMT+02:00 Ghislain Vaillant :
> I have had a look at updating the package to the newest upstream
> release and fixing this FTBFS. However, I have got strong concerns as
> to whether it is worth keeping this package maintained in the archive:
>
> - The latest release on PyPI [1] is busted (missing files). The issue
> was reported [2] but never addressed since.
>
> - Latest activity on the upstream repository is from 2013. By now, I
> expected upstream would have fixed the PyPI tarball, at least.
>
> - No Python 3 support. A manual call to 2to3 on the Python sources
> allows the build process to run, but fails at the compilation stage.
>
> [1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysparse
> [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/pysparse/mailman/message/33117282/
>
> Best regards,
> Ghis

-- 
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers

Bug#836677: pysparse: still worth maintaining?

[Ghislain Vaillant]

I have had a look at updating the package to the newest upstream
release and fixing this FTBFS. However, I have got strong concerns as
to whether it is worth keeping this package maintained in the archive:

- The latest release on PyPI [1] is busted (missing files). The issue
was reported [2] but never addressed since.

- Latest activity on the upstream repository is from 2013. By now, I
expected upstream would have fixed the PyPI tarball, at least.

- No Python 3 support. A manual call to 2to3 on the Python sources
allows the build process to run, but fails at the compilation stage.

[1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysparse
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/pysparse/mailman/message/33117282/

Best regards,
Ghis

--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers