Hi Niels, > 1) I have granted you commit access (developer) to > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/foomuuri in case you want to move > the packaging there.
Thank you. I pushed the commits there and I'll remove my personal copy later. > 2) I am ok with sponsoring your package in its current form, though > I would like to confirm with you that you are okay targeting unstable. Yes, unstable should be fine. Foomuuri has very few dependencies and there are no packages that depends on Foomuuri. There are no large/disruptive changes. New upstream release 0.28 has been very stable in Fedora/EPEL. It includes very user-friendly change by merging two config sections (old configs will work as is) and that's the main reason why I would like it to get to Debian. > it will be sponsored): When you add build-dependencies for testing > only like in 2a88e1c71135d306dcb4185b8e70d00d6ed446a4, consider > tagging them with `<!nocheck>` (such as `nftables <!nocheck>`). This Thanks, I'll keep it in mind and fix to next release. > You mention a backport upload as well. The one I can find is > https://salsa.debian.org/kimheino/foomuuri/-/commits/bookworm-backports?ref_type=heads. > > If so, then that is currently not actionable as the version being > uploaded to backports must be in testing already and 0.28 is not. If > you are still aiming for this, then foomuuri must be uploaded to > unstable and migrate before I can help there. Ok, understood. I'm still new to Debian maintaining... Let's get back to this when it's migrated.
