On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:58:37PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > The package is orphaned per #1051044. You should do a normal QA upload, > please do that even if you still want to do only the same minimal changes you > did > here.
Point taken on both counts. I have the QA upload ready (1.1.4c+dfsg-4, Maintainer set to Debian QA Group, clean lintian) and can post it to mentors immediately. Before I do, I wanted to raise one thing I noticed and get your read on it. For context: I have been working in the Mono/.NET space for a few months -- adopted mono [1] (6.14.1+dfsg2-3 now in unstable) and libgdiplus, filed an ITA on log4net, and a few related NMU/QA jobs. I am working toward a DM application via the dotnet-team. Opentk came up as part of the cli-common elimination work. Looking more carefully at the package: the -3 upload was already a team upload (by Andreas Tille), and the VCS is at salsa.debian.org/dotnet-team/opentk. Setting Maintainer to Debian QA Group while the Salsa repo stays under dotnet-team felt like it warranted a question rather than a silent assumption. The ecosystem picture is thin: one real reverse dependency (repetier-host, maintained by PaulLiu), very low popcon, and upstream 1.x is effectively abandoned as the project has moved to OpenTK 4.x which is a completely different API targeting .NET 6+. Given the Salsa location, would a proper team adoption (ITA, then team upload under dotnet-team) be more coherent here, or do you still prefer the QA path? Happy to do either, the QA upload is done and the ITA route adds only a little process. I just want to make sure I am not inadvertently creating a mismatch between the archive maintainer field and the Salsa home. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mono Best, James
