Priority 981496 normal
Thanks
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for this notification, and sorry for not responding ealier. Chris filed
the original bug, but didn't indicate any actual breakage of the package. Age
alone would, afaik, not be a reason to stop shipping a package; nor would lack
of a formal maintainer be. These indeed _could_ indicate trouble with the
package (so thanks Chris for creating awareness), but are not sufficient for
blocking it from entering testing. No record of actual breakage is filed
upstream. Therefore I feel the priority of this bug should get lowered, and
svtools should get shipped with bullseye as-is.
Adjusting; and hoping I'm not too late here.
Bye,
Joost
On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 10:36:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Hi Joost,
>
> if you as maintainer of daemontools think this package would be useful
> in bookworm, please close the bug (and consider adopting the package).
>
> Thanks
> Adrian
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:25:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:35:45PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > Package: svtools
> > > Version: 0.6-4
> > > Severity: important
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > the package "svtools" has been orphaned by its original maintainer
> > > over 7 years ago. The Debian maintainer was also the upstream
> > > maintainer. Upstream has archived the project, and the last change
> > > was over 9 years ago.
> > >
> > > Is this still useful software? Should we continue to ship it?
> > >
> > > If you are interested, please speak up now.
> > >...
> >
> > Jan, you intend to addopt daemontools.
> >
> > Can you check whether svtools is still useful for Debian
> > (and if yes, ideally also adopt it)?
