Hi, > Well, given that the main maintainer dropped themselves from the > debian/control file, I think the package can be freely adopted, > keeping Leo Antunes on of course in case he reappears. I'll drop the > two of them a note asking for objections, and assuming there are none, > I'd suggest we go ahead with that. What do you think? This would be: > > Maintainer: Leo Antunes <cost...@debian.org> > Uploaders: Alexandre Rossi <n...@zincube.net>, > Barak A. Pearlmutter <b...@debian.org> > > and would allow "proper" uploads, not just NMUs.
Perfect, the end goal being having transmission back in testing ASAP. > I merged your "fix build on bookworm" patch, but the package still > builds fine on a chroot on my own machine, and fails to build on > salsa, > https://salsa.debian.org/bap/transmission/-/pipelines Should be fixed, d/control syntax issue. > If you feel like preparing a serious 4.0.5-2 candidate with > *everything* you think belongs included, rather than just a minimal > NMU, that would be great! Done. https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/transmission/transmission_4.0.5-2.dsc Changes can be reviewed on salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/niol/transmission > What I meant with the pre-built javascript business was that it's more > robust to set things up so *if* the tools to do so are available, that > stuff is rebuilt. But if not, e.g., if someone is building for a small > platform or porting or just wants to build a local copy and doesn't > want to install that stuff, it would use pre-built files instead. This > also makes it easier for porters. This seems like pretty much what > upstream advocates in web/README.md, except the idea is to automate > it. With that stuff in place, it's a lot easier to argue that using > the prebuilt files under some particular circumstance (like some > package is missing from Debian for the moment) is not serious enough > of an issue to delay progression to testing etc. Ok, this feels against DFSG in the sense of including prebuild files in source, and upstream does it, so I do not see clearly a role for Debian regarding this. Do you mean removing the Files-Excluded stanzas in d/copyright? > And yes, your "proper" cmake-test-based -latomic fix is the "right" > way to do it, unlike the sleazy hack I put in debian/rules. Incuded your hack for the mean time, and will initiate work with upstream today to have a proper fix in place. Thanks, Alex
