Hello, On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 08:53:53PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hello Osamu, > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 09:11:37PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Upstream has already created 2.1.8pre on github. For my backport needs, > > I have created salsa.debian.org repository with completely updated > > packaging ;-) > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/shunit2 > > > > If no major objection exists, I am going to make NMU upload this to > > unstable as my salvage activity. (I see over 2 years of non-activity > > even with a good patch.) > > > > * Packaged new upstream 2.1.8pre pre-release with completely > > refreshed packaging structure to cope with the recent upstream > > file organization and consideration to the backward > > compatibility and RPM compatibility. Closes: #887842 > > * Updated license to match upstream: LGPL2.1+ -> Apache 2.0 > > * debian/control: Bump Standards-Version to 4.4.1 and > > wrap-and-sort > > * debian/rules: Clean-up and test against dash, bash, ksh, mksh, > > and zsh. shunit2_misc_test.sh is only tested for bash. > > * Manpage updated based on Branden's groff version with > > additional content by me. Since the main contents are > > apparently copied from upstream documentation, this is also > > changed to Apache 2.0 License. Closes: #861618 > > * Set up salsa.debian.org repository (dgit-maint-merge approach) > > > > > > Osamu > > I think you should go ahead with this. It would be nice to have shunit2 > properly maintained.
I feel the same. I maintain a package that is using shunit2 for autopkgtest and would like to keep it up to date. I reached out the Debian MIA Team regarding this package but haven't heard back yet. I would like to move forward with this package and volunteer to maintain or co-maintain. Are there any objections to me freshening the package and performing the NMU? Specifically, I plan to: - update to the 2.1.8 upstream release - use DEP-14 branch names in the repo Thanks, tony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
