Bill Alombert wrote: >On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:04:18PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: >> Hi Wouter, >> >> Am Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:31:43PM +0200 schrieb Wouter Verhelst: >> > [Feel free to quote any part of this email which I wrote outside of this >> > mailinglist] >> >> OK, moving the discussion to debian-devel where it should belong. >> >> > Debian packages need to be well maintained. In some cases, having >> > multiple maintainers on a package improves the resulting quality of >> > packages. But in some other cases, it does not; one example for this >> > second case is my package "logtool", which I'm going to upload to fix >> > #1066251 soon and for which by the simple act of doing that I will >> > double the amount of uploads it's seen in the past five years (and the >> > number of uploads in the past 10 can still be counted on the fingers of >> > a single hand). >> > >> > This is not because it's not well maintained; it's because the package >> > just *does not require* a lot of work to be kept up to date: upstream >> > has not been active for over 20 years, but it still performs the job it >> > was designed to do, as it was designed to, and I see no need to have it >> > removed from the archive. >> >> What is your opinion about pushing logtool to Salsa? > >Not speaking for logtool obviously, but maintaining simple packages on salsa is >just useless bureaucracy.
So that's OK for *you* only in this case. Now consioder for the project as a whole. Every package that differs from the norm is more effort for anybody else to maintain/bugfix/NMU/whatever. We have a history of this (in so many ways), and it's a significant drain. Please consider the bigger picture. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...