On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:23:19 intrigeri wrote: > I would personally be happy to see you upload the Gajim OTR plugin, > and become the primary maintainer for it, under our team's umbrella.
I'm not that keen to do that. Not yet. I did packaging over 6 months ago and it would have been uploaded long time ago if I were prepared to take responsibility. > But maybe other team members will want to get more involved :) That's my only hope. :) > Now, I have a few questions: > > 1. The current state of upstream work on this plugin is a bit > confusing. The homepage [1] says bugs live in Trac [2], while I've > seen the author re-create on GitHub [3] a bug filed in Trac. > Any idea where is the preferred place to forward Debian bugs? I don't know. > 2. Upstream wrote [4] "I don't have a lot of time for gotr right now" > five months ago, and indeed, an important bug like the "OTR logs > conversations" [5] one has seen no update since then. Are you > confident such problems will be addressed in a timely manner by > upstream, in the future? I have no idea. I rarely use instant messaging these days so I didn't even fully test otr plugin hence I'm lacking confidence necessary for upload. > 3. I see you've called the source package gajim-plugins. If the idea > is to potentially maintain a bunch of non-OTR Gajim plugins in the > source package, then I doubt it's appropriate to put it under the > OTR team's umbrella. So, perhaps a dedicated source package would > be better. What do you think? Probably not, to avoid micro-packaging. To me gajim-plugins is a most appropriate form of packaging gajim plugins (and producing per plugin binary packages) as long as plugins are shipped from common repository checkout even if we're going to ship just one plugin for now. But that's just my vision and I do not mind at all if somebody would choose to de-couple this particular plugin and maintain it separately. -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.