Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: pm-utils: unauthorised and uncommunicated removal"):
> It wouldn't have made the review any noticable amount harder.
Fair enough.
> I do suggest fixing those things, Ancient Standard version and debhelper
> 7 do make it *really* easy to accept "This is unmaintained".
On 17085 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:
Yes, please do so.
Thanks. This has now been done.
I chose to *not* fix anything about the package now (not even the
wrong VCS fields, for example) in order to simplify review.
The diff against the version previously in sid, and currently in
testing,
Thorsten Alteholz writes ("Re: pm-utils: unauthorised and uncommunicated
removal"):
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I intend to re-upload the last version shortly (and reopen all the
> > bug reports).
>
> Yes, please do so.
Thanks. This has now been done.
I chose to *not* fix
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:57:33 -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. And I share your conclusion:
> This specific situation seems unfortunate. I have every confidence the
> maintainers involved will collaborate in a good faith effort to move
> the distro forward.
Hi. Thanks for your nice email.
Thorsten Alteholz writes ("Re: pm-utils: unauthorised and uncommunicated
removal"):
> this is sad. The RM bug appeared on the tracker page of the package, in
> your packages overview, on the ftpmaster removals page (or on the bug
> page). It was also sent to
> I agree.
> Removal request by maintainers are fine.
> Removal requests by anyone for un-maintained packages are ok.
> Removal requests by third-parties for packages with a maintainer are
> a situation to take a closer look at least.
Without:
1) my ftpteam hat on
2) any specific reference to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 02:04:52 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’ll argue for two things here:
> • for a removal, if the requester is not the maintainer, check
> back with the maintainer. Just always do that.
I agree.
Removal request by maintainers are fine.
Removal requests by anyone for
Thorsten Alteholz dixit:
> Where would have been a better place to draw your attention to it?
Not Ian, but the *extremely* obvious and expected place would be
eMail to the maintainer. (Actually, probably: an eMail to everyone
who would have gotten an eMail if a bug against the package itself
had
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Ian Jackson wrote:
I have just become aware of #1058701 via the automated email that
resulted from the removal of pm-utils.
this is sad. The RM bug appeared on the tracker page of the package, in
your packages overview, on the ftpmaster removals page (or on the
I have just become aware of #1058701 via the automated email that
resulted from the removal of pm-utils.
As the maintainer of this package, I do not agree with its removal.
It has no RC bugs, is in testing, and is working software.
I am still using this package. I'm sure others are. The
10 matches
Mail list logo
