> Instead of double maintenance of a snap and a package we > should drop the package.
This is not necessarily relevant. Anyone can package a snap, not every snap is something that we want to promote over the deb packages in the archive and may not be from a reputable source. In this case the snap appears to be provided by upstream, so that's a good thing. The (necessary and sufficient) rationale for removing the package, in this case, is: - it has no reverse-dependencies - it fails to build from source - it blocks removal of an NBS binary from the release (libicu67) So I will remove the package from jammy and jammy-proposed. *However*, I will specifically *not* add it to the blacklist to prevent newer versions of the package from being synced from Debian in later releases, if the Debian maintainer fixes it. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1962154 Title: [REMOVE PACKAGE] 0ad To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/0ad/+bug/1962154/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
