Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
Hi there! Juliusz, it is better to point your question to the *maintainer* of the package, not to debian-devel@ (which is not a mandatory mailing list for all the maintainers). Adding the Debian Common Lisp team to the loop. On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:25:19 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: It seems that there are no outstanding bugs against the package, so there should be no problem with using the existing package, and I see that 0.6 is still the current version so I presume that it's not a fast moving package, so should really only need uploads as bugs are reported, or once every release to keep up with relevant policy changes. The package is bug-free, yes, and I would say it is even less that a fast moving package, the latest upstream release being the one we had in main (plus some patches from one year and a half ago). NB, I have not checked the full darcs repositories, but only the NEWS file on it. I am not saying that the package is not anymore interesting because upstream seems dead. And if you read the email I linked from #610903, you can see that I have checked for alternatives, missing paps, however: Message-ID: 87fwt921lt@gismo.pca.it URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/2011-January/002522.html I'd imagine that Luca would be willing to hold your hand for the first upload if that helps (assuming that he's still up to speed on the package). Luca? No problem in re-doing an upload, but this is the *last* action I will do for this package. Really, I do not even remember why I started maintaining it, I think it was when we switched to team maintenance in the Debian Common Lisp team. And given that I have abandoned all my Common Lisp work, I do not see the point in keeping myself in the Uploaders: field... FYI, I do not use cedilla. Another possibility would be to have cedilla added to clbuild http://common-lisp.net/project/clbuild/, which is officially supported in the common-lisp-controller package since version 7.0 (clc-build wrapper), and in some way also before starting from version 6.19. On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:12:01 +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: There is always the option of either recruiting one of those disappointed users to maintain the package, or doing it yourself. Thanks for the suggestion -- but I'm already spending all of my proverbial Copious Free Time on upstream work. Well, to be clear I am already out of time, not only for my Debian work. It seems a shame to lose a bug-free package when you apparently have users that are going to miss it. I think so too. But I cannot be doing everything. FWIW, me neither. I thought about keeping cedilla and actually orphaning it, as you can read in one of my emails (the one linked from #610903): Message-ID: 87fwt921lt@gismo.pca.it URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/2011-January/002522.html But please note that after having waited one month and a half, no one From the Debian Common Lisp team replied to my request for help: Message-ID: 8762uvjimb@gismo.pca.it URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/2010-December/002483.html I know about the correct procedure when orphaning packages, but I thought that if someone was interested she/he should have shown up way before my call for help. And I do not think having more than 300 packages maintained by the QA team is a good thing: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=packa...@qa.debian.org So, to summarise, what I can do is: I upload the same version which was removed from main (plus the maintainer set to the QA team), ask for a fast review to pass NEW (hi, Alexander!) and to the Release team to have it quickly migrated into testing. Then I orphan the package with a bug to wnpp and I *forget* about it. Peter, you performed the last upload, what do you think? Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgp6KfdInfCqo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:12:01 +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote: There is always the option of either recruiting one of those disappointed users to maintain the package, or doing it yourself. Thanks for the suggestion -- but I'm already spending all of my proverbial Copious Free Time on upstream work. That's why I was primarily suggesting that you contact the people that are telling you that they will miss it, and ask if they are willing to do the packaging work. Debian is primarily built by people for their own use, so if any of the people that have got in touch with you care about it enough to do the relatively small amount of work to build and upload the package, then it will be in Debian. On the other hand, if none of the users care that much, then the package fails to pass the not very rigorous bar to entry for Debian -- we require that at least one user cares enough to maintain each package. I think so too. But I cannot be doing everything. I was only really suggesting that you pass on the suggestion to those that have contacted you. You should mention to them the version that was ready to go for Squeeze mentioned by Carsten Hey: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/cedilla/0.6%2B20090614-1/ which means that for the first upload, they need to do almost nothing. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpCCxMz0CnD3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:14:39PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I'm upstream for Cedilla [1,2], which has been orphaned and removed from Sid. I'm receiving e-mail from Debian users of Cedilla, asking me what is the suggested replacement. What shall I answer? See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610903 -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
On 01/25/2011 02:36 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:14:39PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I'm upstream for Cedilla [1,2], which has been orphaned and removed from Sid. I'm receiving e-mail from Debian users of Cedilla, asking me what is the suggested replacement. What shall I answer? See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610903 Also, there may be some possible alternatives in: $ debtags search use::converting works-with::unicode works-with-format::postscript gnome-u2ps - tool to convert UTF-8 text to PostScript groff - GNU troff text-formatting system groff-base - GNU troff text-formatting system (base system components) halibut - yet another free document preparation system paps - UTF-8 to PostScript converter using Pango gnome-u2ps was already mentioned. paps perhaps, if you're allergic to gnome? sadly, i got nowhere with debtags related cedilla so i had to resort to hand-picking some relevant tags. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3f1bf6.1060...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
Thanks to both of you -- I've forwarded your messages to my (soon-to-be former, sigh) users. --Juliusz pgpdCt7J6BkEQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
On 01/25/2011 03:09 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Thanks to both of you -- I've forwarded your messages to my (soon-to-be former, sigh) users. Minus the false hits from my search, I hope? My main point was to illustrate debtags is a nice tool for finding related packages (some time I'll try to figure out why 'related' didn't work for me, as that would have been ideal). Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3f2474.3080...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
Hi Juliusz, On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:09:43 +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote: Thanks to both of you -- I've forwarded your messages to my (soon-to-be former, sigh) users. There is always the option of either recruiting one of those disappointed users to maintain the package, or doing it yourself. It seems that there are no outstanding bugs against the package, so there should be no problem with using the existing package, and I see that 0.6 is still the current version so I presume that it's not a fast moving package, so should really only need uploads as bugs are reported, or once every release to keep up with relevant policy changes. This is one route into debian: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-intro I'd imagine that Luca would be willing to hold your hand for the first upload if that helps (assuming that he's still up to speed on the package). Luca? It seems a shame to lose a bug-free package when you apparently have users that are going to miss it. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgp0JdvQhzRKM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
There is always the option of either recruiting one of those disappointed users to maintain the package, or doing it yourself. Thanks for the suggestion -- but I'm already spending all of my proverbial Copious Free Time on upstream work. It seems a shame to lose a bug-free package when you apparently have users that are going to miss it. I think so too. But I cannot be doing everything. --Juliusz pgphaGWFCz5b8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cedilla removed from sid, users complain
* Andrey Rahmatullin [2011-01-25 23:36 +0500]: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 07:14:39PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I'm upstream for Cedilla [1,2], which has been orphaned and removed from Sid. I'm receiving e-mail from Debian users of Cedilla, asking me what is the suggested replacement. What shall I answer? See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610903 The package that would have been released with Squeeze if it wouldn't have been orphaned is still available: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/cedilla/0.6%2B20090614-1/ Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110125224729.ga15...@furrball.stateful.de
