Hi again, I can perfectly imagine that a project like this requires resources that are harder to gather than some simple package and I appreciate your attempt to do this and would like to provide some help that might be needed.
However, what we currently have in Debian is a non-functional package so I fail to see the profit from a user perspective. Even from developers perspective there is no advatage in keeping the current package inside the Debian package pool. Due to the changes of the binary names you will have to pass the Debian new queue in any case. So I'd rather tend to remove the current Debian package and build new ones from scratch in the freshly created packaging archive. I will remove the moreinfo tag from this bug in one months - provided you will not have convincing arguments that keeping the current status quo has some advantages over removing. Kind regards Andreas. Am Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 10:32:19PM +0000 schrieb [email protected]: > Thank you very much for that Andreas. > > We really just need to allocate resources to this, and this should be > possible within the next couple months. > > All the best, > > -Jerome > > On 2025-11-28 15:15, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Thanks > > > > Hi Jerome, > > > > I hereby have set the bug to moreinfo which will prevent removal. > > > > Please let me know if you need any help to move forward > > > > Andreas. > > > > Am Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 02:11:59PM +0000 schrieb [email protected]: > > > Hi Andreas, all, > > > > > > Apologies for my late answer. > > > > > > I was traveling over the last couple weeks, saw the e-mail pass by, > > > but > > > forgot to reply. > > > > > > We were still hoping to fix the existing package, and it seems like > > > it would > > > have been easier to fix the existing package than pass the new > > > queue... > > > > > > I dont think we ever changed the SONAME in the previous versions, so > > > there > > > were no plans to change them again for this upcoming 0.44.16 > > > release. The > > > libraries version numbers would have remained .so.0.44. > > > > > > We unfortunately were not able to spend the time during the last few > > > months > > > specifically on this Debian packaging due to various reasons and > > > conflicting > > > priorities, but we are still definitely planning this 0.44.16 > > > release which > > > addresses at minimum all those FTBFS bugs as soon as possible. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > -Jerome > > > > > > On 2025-11-28 13:00, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > Control: severity -1 normal > > > > Control: retitle -1 RM: ecere-sdk -- RoM; rc-buggy > > > > Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org > > > > Control: affects -1 + src:ecere-sdk > > > > Control: tags -1 - wontfix > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > as I wrote in my last mail: There was no progress in > > > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/ecere-team/ecere-sdk > > > > > > > > and a new version needs to pass the new queue anyway due to changed > > > > binary names. So there is no profit in keeping the currently broken > > > > package. > > > > > > > > Thus I'm reassigning the bug to ftp.debian.org and remove the wontfix > > > > tag. > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Andreas. > > > > -- https://fam-tille.de
