Hi Adam, Thanks for your email.
On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote: > This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the > maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're > taking steps to salvage it, it wouldn't be a NMU (at least without an > explanation). And a NMU requires following the procedure. This puts me in a catch-22 situation, doesn't it? While I agree that there are a large number of changes, if I don't update the package standards or fix lintian issues, someone on Debian Mentors will (most likely) reject the package until the work is done. Also, I have read through section 5.11 of the Developer's Reference [1] several times, but I cannot see which part of the NMU procedure I have missed. > The package is marked as team maintained, but neither do I see you among > the PhotoTools team, nor did you claim a team upload. That's correct. I'm not part of the PhotoTools team. > Thus, while your changes are welcome, I see confusion wrt what you're > trying to do here. Options include: > * a traditional "hostile" NMU: targetted fixes only, posting a NMU diff is > required prior to upload I sent the diff and intent to NMU to #786562 a few days ago [2]. That mail was automatically sent to the PhotoTools mailing list. I'm not sure what you mean by "hostile". > * an authorized (ie, with maintainer's consent) NMU: everything goes I sent an email to Emmanuel Bouthenot a week ago asking whether he or Frederic Peters were able to update the package with the upstream CVE patches and Multi-Arch: same field. I also flagged my intent to NMU if they could not update the package. He did not respond. I also tried contacting him via PM on OFTC -- again, no response. > * a team upload: you'd need to talk with folks of the PhotoTools team, then > it's no longer a NMU (mark as "Team upload", regular version number) Unfortunately, their mailing list seems largely abandoned. But I'll try again. I do know a developer maintaining another of the team's packages, but he doesn't have upload rights for libexif. > * a non-team salvage: doesn't look appropriate as other packages of that > team look alive Agreed. > That lintian override is wrong, only one paragraph can apply to a file. > I haven't done any real review other than a quick glance, thus there might > be more issues. The debian/copyright file follows the usual structure, with the exception of a few paragraphs, which refer to the same file. For example: Files: po/en_GB.po Copyright: 2009, Bruce Cowan License: LGPL-2.1+ [...] Files: po/en_GB.po Copyright: 2010, Robert Readman License: LGPL-2.1+ This causes lintian to complain that the first occurrence is not used. I'm not sure how to fix this, as in one case, the licence is different. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786562 -- Hugh McMaster