Dear maintainer,
could you please give some hints, why you actually think the package is
unmaintainable or whre we can find information about this? This would be
usefull for everyone considering to adopt it.
Hi Michael,
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:29:27 -0500 Michael Lustfield
wrote:
> [ moving back to rsnapshot ]
>
> > [...]
> > Debian package. The only bug of "serious" severity classification is
> > this one. But when my uninformed assessment is at odds with an actual
> > Debian maintainer, I have no
Note: This is a general response, not meant to address rsnapshot specifically.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:24:43 -0400
John Brooks wrote:
> [...]
> And that's about where my ability to contribute usefully ends. My belief
My offer to mentor prospective debian maintainers stands. I might not be the
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 16:26:58 +0200
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> [...]
> Esp. when compared to dirvish (see my previous mail), which is
> unmaintained for 16+ years, but still available in bullseye. What's the
See my note about whataboutisms and strawman arguments
... and thanks for highlighting a
John Brooks wrote:
> I don't know precisely what criteria of stability and quality are used
> to judge whether a package is suitable for inclusion; my outside view
> is that this package is no more broken or unmaintained than the
> average Debian package.
Esp. when compared to dirvish (see my
On 2021-09-30 6:13 p.m., Michael Lustfield wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400
John Brooks wrote:
[...]
So... My first response was a wordier version of the message you replied to,
emphasizing the bit where my opinion is moot. What's written below is as much
as I'm willing to dip back
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400
John Brooks wrote:
> [...]
> Michael,
>
> I think it is important that you clarify or modify your stance given
> that upon further inspection by others here, there are no serious
> outstanding functional or security issues with the program. Even
>
On Fri, 28 May 2021 15:39:28 -0500 Michael Lustfield
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
> David Cantrell wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has
> > exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.
>
> I'm not
On Fri, 28 May 2021 15:39:28 -0500 Michael Lustfield
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
> David Cantrell wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has
> > exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.
>
> I'm not
On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
> [...]
> So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has
> exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.
I'm not going to strawman my justifications; it's not terribly relevant anyway.
Of the 11 open PRs, several are marked as "needs tests", and all but
three look like new features, not bugfixes. Two of the three bug fixes
are for rsnapreport, a tool that to be blunt I don't think is very
important. One is for LVM- and BTRFS- specific issues so is hard for
people without a
11 matches
Mail list logo
