On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 02:54:23PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Am Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 06:58:52PM +0100 schrieb наб: > > I'm interested in salvaging your package rcs-blame, in accordance with the > > Package Salvaging procedure outlined in the Developers Reference[1]. > > Your package meets the criteria for this process, and I would love to > > assist in preserving and maintaining it. As the Salvage process > > suggests, here is a list of the criteria that apply, in my opinion: > > > > - NMUs (more than one NMU in a row). > > - Bugs filed against the package do not have answers from the > > maintainer. > > - Upstream has released several versions, but despite there being > > a bug entry asking for it, it has not been packaged. > > - There are QA issues with the package. > that's all true, but are you an rcs user or have you ever been one? I've had the dubious pleasure, but I must also've clearly misremembered the utility of this package to me, personally (I thought I used it previously on SCCS dumps (a common occurrence for me unfortunately), but it doesn't work there, it only works on CVS dumps).
> because you don't give any reason why the package is useful to you or > anyone else today - you just gave reasons why it's ok to transfer > maintainership, which in itself has no value if the package has no value > today anymore. Fair cop; in the other bugs, Dickey says he uses it regularly; so regularly in fact that he's also become the upstream (and that's what I've packaged at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rcs-blame). I was going to ask him if, since he's also the upstream, he wants to be the listed maintainer, which would tighten the maintainer/user loop, but you beat me to it here. > I'm very happy about QA efforts in general, but some cleanups IMO achieve > the opposite of cleanup: they prevent removal of things which should be > cleaned up and removed. I don't disagree here (and the BOTD bugs tend to point out packages that do just want to be removed, that's like half of the RM queue rn). But in principle this package is useful for the same reason RCS is useful. We should be shipping the extended RCS toolchain as long as we're shipping RCS itself IMO, and that's not going away any time soon. OTOH the popcon is looking awfully 0-y (while RCS's very much is not), and the new upstream is the first google result for "RCS blame", so. I've added Dickey to Cc:, maybe he can opine on what the best course of action would be (be it keeping the package with him as the downstream maintainer, removing it, or a different third thing). Best,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
