On Friday, March 11, 2022 8:15:55 PM EST Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:27:24 -0500 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > Since progress is being made, it seems a like it would be better not to > > remove it. > > > > What would you think of uploading what you tested to experimental (with > > enough tests disabled it builds) and then ping the bug and I'll remove it > > from unstable? That will enable it to remain in Debian and move back to > > Unstable (and presumably Testing) when you are ready without causing any > > confusion for the Python 3.10 transition. > > Unfortunately I didn't receive your email because Andrey is > 1000550-submitter. I've read that other DDs have become upset by not > receiving any notifications until the package was removed from the > archive, and I believe it's worth amending the process to include both > the Maintainer and Uploaders in CC for removal bugs (arguably all bugs, > but I digress). This proposal is to prevent demotivating social issues > from emerging. > > Sadly, in this case the "one failing test" I wrote of is central to > Elpy's functionality (ie: the Python Debugger interface, and/or the > tests involving it are broken), and disabling it is not sufficient to > prevent FTBFS. > > Thank you for your patience waiting for a resolution. I guess this is > the end of Elpy's almost five year life in Debian--it was the Debian's > first Python IDE, and I invested uncountable hours of my life into > making it work (on Debian), and keeping it working. It's sad that this > didn't count for something among the involved teams, but oh well... I > hope the LSP future works out OK :-)
There's nothing saying it can't be uploaded again once it's ready. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
