Control: tags -1 moreinfo Thanks Am Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 01:33:52AM -0800 schrieb Nathan Osman: > Sorry for not noticing this until now! This came up in a GitHub issue a few > weeks ago, but I'll jump in here to clarify.
Thanks a lot for your response. > Basically, the library is in "maintenance mode" and I won't be investing > time in adding new features. If there are security issues, obviously I will > take a look at those. Mostly my reasons for this are: > > - The project I initially developed it for no longer needs it (switching > from C++ to Go) > - Qt itself now offers at least a basic HTTP server > > I believe there was a pull request at some point to add Qt6 support and if > there is interest in salvaging, I am willing to at least put in the effort > to make sure it compiles and passes the test suite. I can offer anyone some > guidance if they want to take over the project or maintenance of it. Well, the open bug about CMake 4 is fixed in Git and simply uploading it would be cheap. There was just the discussion whether we might cause more harm than good be "pretending" the package is maintaines but finally nobody cares about security. If you confirm you are available and might care for issues that might be reported, I could sponsor the current work in https://salsa.debian.org/salvage-team/qhttpengine Most probably it makes more sense to move it to Debian team and grant you push permissions. If you create a login on salsa.debian.org and tell me your login name I can easily do so. Kind regards Andreas. > - Nathan > > On 2025-11-26 03:49, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Control: severity -1 serious > > Control: retitle -1 Should qhttpengine be removed from Debian? > > Thanks > > > > Hi Nicolas, > > > > Am Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 11:30:38AM +0100 schrieb Nicolas Schodet: > > > I am not sure the package is worth salvaging: > > > > > > - Being an HTTP server, it may be security sensitive. > > > - There was only one upload, which may indicate the original uploader > > > has no plan to keep working on Debian. > > > - There is no reverse dependency on this package. > > > - The last upstream release is 7 years old. > > > - Popularity in popcon is really low. > > > - Upstream seems to be working on nitroshare2, which is written in > > > Go, > > > and therefore does not need this library anymore. > > > > > > The first point is what worries me the most, the other points question > > > whether it is worth the effort. > > > > Thank you for those very valid points. I re-evaluated the situation > > (learned that the last release was nearly 8 years ago) and its also > > based on Qt5 - so we will run probably into some porting trouble once > > this will be droped from Debian. Thanks also for the hint that the main > > upstream author moved to some other project. > > > > Thus I'm hereby retitling the bug from ITS to a Pre-Removal bug. Given > > that the maintainer has not responded yet I raise severity to serious > > to attract attention. > > > > In 10 days I will turn this bug into a request for removal in case there > > will be no hints that this package might be valuable inside Debian and > > there is someone willing to maintain this package seriously (including > > porting to Qt6). > > > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > -- https://fam-tille.de
