El 13/02/25 a las 21:57, Paul Gevers escribió: > Hi, > > On 13-02-2025 20:21, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > Any thoughts? > > > You might also want to somehow take activity on the package into account. > E.g. cacti (that I am nearly the only uploader for) has seen an update for > CVE's only last week. I don't think I need (nor would I appreciate) more > naging.
Thanks for this comment, acknowledged. > How do you envision *using* this list, except having this discussion and > sharing a dd-list as suggested by Jonas? File wishlist bugs against the > packages if they don't exist yet (taking the first paragraph into account > too)? I think that reporting bugs would make sense, and it is the first idea that naturally came up to my mind. In any case, I was not thinking in blindly running mass-bug filing. Other than to take into account recent activity, I think it is important to look for possible reasons for not packaging the version reported by uscan, before filing a bug report. Maintainers may have different methods to keep a package up-to-date, e.g. (again) nginx, for which keeping ABI/API stable is also important. So, I was *not* planing to file bugs for all of the packages listed there. To answer other comments in this thread, yes, more filtering would enhance this list. I acknowledge that the current script and list is not perfect. Cheers, -- Santiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
