Bug#1028227: Should we FTP RM libi8x?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:30:40PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > doko is not MIA. I've seen recent uploads from him. He's also on IRC. I > asked him on IRC, he replied fairly quickly: > > 17:27 < doko> paultag: please remove, there's no upstream development anymore > > Next time, it'd be great if you gave him a ping and found a way to get > in touch with package maintainers - RoQA'ing a package that ought to be > RoM because the maintainer is still very active in Debian is a lot of > work for us to resolve. I spoke too soon, this removal has a reverse dependency issue: Checking reverse dependencies... # Broken Build-Depends: i8c: python3-libi8x Dependency problem found. williamdes: can you take a look at i8c and file a RoM/RoQA for that as well? Looks like it's not in testing or stable. paultag -- :wq
Bug#1028227: Should we FTP RM libi8x?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 08:49:04AM +0100, William Desportes wrote: > Hi, > > I would say that at first doko was not reachable, now doko has probably a lot > to do. > > I had mailed the MIA team to see what could be done. doko is not MIA. I've seen recent uploads from him. He's also on IRC. I asked him on IRC, he replied fairly quickly: 17:27 < doko> paultag: please remove, there's no upstream development anymore Next time, it'd be great if you gave him a ping and found a way to get in touch with package maintainers - RoQA'ing a package that ought to be RoM because the maintainer is still very active in Debian is a lot of work for us to resolve. paultag -- :wq
Bug#1028227: Should we FTP RM libi8x?
Hi, I would say that at first doko was not reachable, now doko has probably a lot to do. I had mailed the MIA team to see what could be done. Now it's up to doko -- William Desportes
