Re: Bug#1053165: ITS: nunit

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:22:20 +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: >Okay. What do you suggest for "team maintained" packages where there is no >active team member? >File MIA processes for each of the uploaders? And then? The MIA team's bugs >are not RC bugs, >so you cannot even NMU them based on the

Re: Embedded buildpath via rpath using cmake

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:41:21 -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > >I've attached a list of the maintainers of affected packages produced >with dd-list, getting the list of packages from the above-mentioned >reproducible builds issue and diff.dcsr.txt from archive rebuild. > >If you're on the list,

Re: Switch to DEP-14-ish with an existing "debian" branch

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:07:22 +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: >Hi, > >So these days I decided that DEP-14[1] actually seems to be a Good >Thing(tm) and I started thinking about switching my packages' Git >repositories to this layout. However, I immediately hit a snag: >in some of my repositories the

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:14:31 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote: >Hi everyone, > >It has happened to me in the recent years quite a few times that a >package which I was using has a RoQA bug filed against it, and the >package's got removed at a very short notice. > >For example, in