On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:12:31PM +0100, Florian Vessaz wrote: > We've got no reply from the current maintainers to this bug report since > the approximately 2 and a half years it has been opened. I thus think > it's safe to presume the current maintainers have no interest in keeping > PAM up-to-date in Debian.
Wow, that's an incredible conclusion less than 2 weeks after a maintainer upload. It happens that fly-by NMUs are a lot less work than properly maintaining a package. So yes, there were a series of NMUs from developers who had no investment in the long-term maintainability of the package in the time it took me to get the VCS history converted into something supported and do a maintainer upload. (I appreciate your past efforts to handle this migration, but in your own words "the history of the packaging is not pretty" and I was unwilling to accept an incomplete history of the packaging.) > The following points are taken from the Debian Developer's Reference > document mentioned above: > * NMUs, especially if there has been more than one NMU in a row. > Since the 18th of April 2016, date at which this bug was opened there was: > 2016-06-02 1.1.8-3.3 NMU > 2016-12-20 1.1.8-3.4 NMU > 2017-01-04 1.1.8-3.5 NMU > 2017-05-27 1.1.8-3.6 NMU > 2018-02-07 1.1.8-3.7 NMU > 2018-08-13 1.1.8-3.8 NMU > 2019-01-09 1.1.8-4 upload by a maintainer I think this is poorly worded in the DevRef. Clearly the intent is that there be several /unacknowledged/ NMUs. Anyway, consider this an objection to salvaging of the pam package. I am happy to take a look at your work to forward-port the patches onto pam 1.3. Would you be willing to rebase https://gitlab.gnugen.ch/fvessaz/pkg-pam.git onto https://salsa.debian.org/vorlon/pam.git ? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
