Apologies. I forgot to change the Content-Type on my previous mail, which made it an unreadable mess. The intended message was as follows:
Hello FTP Masters, The magma-rocm package has been in the NEW queue for quite a while [1]. Was there something about this upload that was of particular concern? The magma-rocm (2.9.0+ds-2) package is generated from the same upstream tarball as magma (2.9.0+ds-2), so I'd expected it to be a straightforward package from a NEW processing standpoint. However, there is no formal mechanism that clearly expresses that relationship, so perhaps it is not as useful to FTP Master review as I had hoped? The Debian Science and Debian Deep Learning teams have a number of source packages that share the same upstream tarball for ROCm and CUDA variants, so perhaps we need to create a mechanism to express that property in the packaging? Or maybe we need to use a different pattern for packaging these variants? I am really just speculating as to why magma-rocm seems to have been a problem. Your guidance would be appreciated. Sincerely, Cory Bloor [1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/magma-rocm_2.9.0+ds-2.html
