Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Scott Kitterman]

It was removed two weeks ago, so it'll need to go back through New.

Scott K

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 4:02:17 PM EDT Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Amazing! Thank you for your hard work and willingness to help! Very cool!
> 
> Cc'ing ftpmaster so no one actions it while its in limbo
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 2:39 PM Nils Dagsson Moskopp <
> 
> nils+debian-report...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> > Paul Tagliamonte  writes:
> > > Well, seeing as how Daniel Is the maintainer, perhaps one of you can
> > > take
> > > over as maintainer and rename / reassign this bug to an adoption.
> > > 
> > > How does that sound, all?
> > 
> > If no one is willing, I can be a maintainer, but I have no experience.
> > 
> > I have been asking around for maintainers for some days now.
> > 
> > Please reassign this bug to an adoption soon.

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Amazing! Thank you for your hard work and willingness to help! Very cool!

Cc'ing ftpmaster so no one actions it while its in limbo

Paul

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 2:39 PM Nils Dagsson Moskopp <
nils+debian-report...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:

> Paul Tagliamonte  writes:
>
> > Well, seeing as how Daniel Is the maintainer, perhaps one of you can take
> > over as maintainer and rename / reassign this bug to an adoption.
> >
> > How does that sound, all?
>
> If no one is willing, I can be a maintainer, but I have no experience.
>
> I have been asking around for maintainers for some days now.
>
> Please reassign this bug to an adoption soon.
>

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Nils Dagsson Moskopp]

Paul Tagliamonte  writes:

> Well, seeing as how Daniel Is the maintainer, perhaps one of you can take
> over as maintainer and rename / reassign this bug to an adoption.
>
> How does that sound, all?

If no one is willing, I can be a maintainer, but I have no experience.

I have been asking around for maintainers for some days now.

Please reassign this bug to an adoption soon.

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 9:06 PM Nils Dagsson Moskopp <
nils+debian-report...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:

> Package: ftp.debian.org
> Followup-For: Bug #935057
>
>
> According to this, there were 5 commits today:
> 
>

Well, seeing as how Daniel Is the maintainer, perhaps one of you can take
over as maintainer and rename / reassign this bug to an adoption.

How does that sound, all?

paultag

>

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Nils Dagsson Moskopp]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #935057


According to this, there were 5 commits today:

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Witold Baryluk]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #935057


Hi,

I just noticed removal of 'afl' from testing, because it was removed from
unstable, but I find this removal a bit quick in jumping to conclussions
that afl is unmaintained.

There was a release just few days ago, and the project is hosted in more
open manner than before on github (previously it was maintained by one
person, and without any real source control system accessible to public,
which also did affect me, as I did send patches to original author, and
they were never responded to or merged):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/afl-users/ODNQwYqZGC0

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/afl-users/WX8NdcB9GmM

GitHub shows plenty of pull requests and merged code in recent days:

https://github.com/google/AFL/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr



Version 2.53b correctly build with clang / llvm 8.0.

In fact it also does build with clang 9 too.

And even before that there were patches to do so with 2.52b (
https://github.com/vanhauser-thc/afl-patches ).

2.52c released month ago, also does support llvm / clang++ from 3.8 to up
to including 8. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/afl-users/jHPw2LvbE0A



It is more a question to maintainer of afl package.

I wish the package was back in Debian, as I did find it pretty useful for
my work, and less manually compiled packages the better. :)

Thank you,
Witold

Bug#935057: RM: afl -- ROM; upstream not actively developed anymore

[Daniel Stender]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi Ftp team,

please remove the package afl [1] from the archive. Its original developer
left Google, and its not actively further developed anymore [2]. It doesn't
build with LLVM > 6.0, which is blocked to be dropped by it.

I've filed removal requests for the reverse-deps afl-cov (#935055) and
python-afl (#935054), too, which by the side are low on popcon stats.

Thanks,
Daniel Stender

[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/afl

[2] https://twitter.com/Dor3s/status/1154737061787660288