Well Andreas, basically I ment upstream Debian development not really taking over the development of dicompyler itself.
I think there are issues with the current Debian package but it can be useful for particular users to have it in Debian. I think I can fix in a month or so the problems regarding widgets and make it reasonable stable to the next stable Debian release. So please lower the severity to important and I am OK with a git, I will set up some development branch and when it will be ready merge it to the master. Kind regards, Vojtech. 2017-03-10 10:55 GMT+01:00 Andreas Tille <andr...@fam-tille.de>: > Hi Vojtech, > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:23:35AM +0100, Vojtech Kulvait wrote: > > If I were about to take care about this package in upstream what should I > > do and what is the development timetable? > > I'm not really sure what you need to take over upstream - probably the > owner of the project needs to grant you commit permissions to the > repository. > > Regarding the Debian package it is sufficient to develop a (quilt-)patch > that lets the program work. If you prefer SVN over Git I can move the > packaging to Git but you can also simply sent a patch here to this bug. > The development time table is quite clear and the status page > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dicompyler > > says: > > Marked for autoremoval on 11 March: 854837 > > Version of dicompyler is marked for autoremoval from testing on Sat > 11 Mar 2017. It is affected by 854837. You should try to prevent the > removal by fixing these RC bugs. > > So well, this is tomorrow which is a bit dense to meet the next stable > release. Removal from testing means the package will not be shipped > with the next official Debian stable release. However, in case the > package gets fixed I'd happily provide it via backports.debian.org and > if the development continues in the next stable Debian release (usually > about two years are inbetween two stable releases). > > BTW, there is one way to deliver the current dicompyler in next Debian > Stable if you say: Well, it is buggy but has some practical use anyway. > In this case we could lower the severity of the bug to "important" which > is not release critical. Since I'm no user of the package I can not > really decide what severity is correct in this case. > > Hope this explanation is helpful > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >