Bug#855440: RFS: bglibs/2.03+dfsg-2

[Dmitry Bogatov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bglibs"

* Package name : bglibs
  Version  : 2.03+dfsg-2
  Upstream Author  : Bruce Guenter 
* Url  : http://untroubled.org/bglibs/
* Licenses : GPL-2+,LGPL-2+,LGPL-2.1+
  Programming Lang : C
  Section  : libs

 ${S:Long-Desc}
 .
 This package contains the shared libraries.

It builds those binary packages:

  * libbg2
  * libbg-dev
  * libbg2-doc

Please note, that package is maintained with dgit(1) tool using
dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow. In particular, it means that quilt
patches are squashed in source package and are not intended for
review. For more information about how to sponsor this package,
see dgit-sponsorship(7).

  Git repository: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/bglibs.git
  Git branch: master
  Orig tar.gz: from tag 2.03+dfsg

With /bin/sh following commands should suffice:

  $ git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/bglibs.git 
bglibs
  $ cd bglibs
  $ git archive -o ../bglibs_2.03+dfsg.orig.tar.xz 2.03+dfsg
  $ dgit sbuild

Changes since last upload:

  * QA upload
  * Remove Conflict field from libbg-dev.
  * Install build tools into libbg-dev package, since they are required
for building other packages of same upstream.
  * Fix spelling error in cli-generate.1

Regards,
  Dmitry Bogatov

Bug#855439: RFS: cvm/0.97

[Dmitry Bogatov]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cvm"

* Package name : cvm
  Version  : 0.97
  Upstream Author  : Bruce Guenter 
* Url  : http://untroubled.org/cvm/
* Licenses : LGPL-2+,GPL-2+,LGPL-2.1+
  Programming Lang : C
  Section  : libs

 CVM is a framework for validating a set of credentials against a database
 using a filter program.  The modules act as a filter, taking a set of
 credentials as input and writing a set of facts as output if those
 credentials are valid.  Optional input is given to the module through
 environment variables.
 .
 Some of the ideas for CVM came from experience with PAM (pluggable
 authentication modules), the checkpassword interface used by qmail-pop3d,
 and the "authmod" interface used by Courier IMAP and POP3.  This framework
 places fewer restrictions on the invoking client than checkpassword does,
 and is much simpler to implement on both sides than PAM and the authmod
 framework.

Note, that this is not full-scale modernization of package. It is just a
NMU, required for libbg1 -> libbg2 transition. There is still a lot of
Lintian warnings, I know.

It builds those binary packages:

  * cvm
  * cvm-mysql
  * cvm-pgsql
  * libcvm1
  * libcvm1-dev

Please note, that package is maintained with dgit(1) tool using
dgit-maint-merge(7) workflow. In particular, it means that quilt patches
are squashed in source package and are not intended for review. For more
information about how to sponsor this package, see dgit-sponsorship(7).

  Git repository: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/bglibs.git
  Git branch: master
  Orig tar.gz: from tag upstream/0.97

With /bin/sh following commands should suffice:

  $ git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/bglibs.git 
bglibs
  $ cd bglibs
  $ git archive -o ../cvm_0.97.orig.tar.xz upstream/0.97
  $ dgit sbuild

Changes since last upload:

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * New upstream release (compatible with bglibs >= 2.03)
  * Write watch file and verify GPG signature
  * Upgrade dependendency on bglibs (libbg1-dev -> libbg-dev >= 2.03)
  * Drop rpath related patch (fixed upstream)
  * Adjust debian/rules to changed upstream Makefile
  * Add ldconfig trigger

Regards,
  Dmitry Bogatov

Bug#855202: marked as done (RFS: binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1 [RC][NMU] -- check if a file is binary or text)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:38:16 -0700
with message-id <20170218033815.hmsv34yddtk7d...@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#855202: RFS: binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1 [RC][NMU] -- 
check if a file is binary or text
has caused the Debian Bug report #855202,
regarding RFS: binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1 [RC][NMU] -- check if a file is 
binary or text
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
855202: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855202
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "binaryornot" as [RC][NMU].

 * Package name: binaryornot
   Version : 0.4.0+dfsg-0.1
   Upstream Author : Audrey Roy 
 * URL : https://github.com/audreyr/binaryornot
 * License : BSD-3-clause
   Section : python

It builds those binary packages:

  python-binaryornot - check if a file is binary or text (Python 2 module)
  python3-binaryornot - check if a file is binary or text (Python 3 module)

To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/binaryornot


Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/binaryornot/binaryornot_0.4.0+dfsg-0.1.dsc

or you can use git-buildpackage to build:
(since I don't have access to maintainer's Vcs, I pushed my changes to github)
  gbp clone --pristine-tar https://github.com/rogers0/binaryornot
  cd binaryornot
  gbp buildpackage -uc -us --pristine-tar

I also made it available on debomatic (i386):
  
http://debomatic-i386.debian.net/distribution#unstable/binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1/buildlog

Changes since the last upload:

  binaryornot (0.4.0+dfsg-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium

* Non-maintainer upload.

[ Ondřej Nový ]
* Fixed VCS URL (https)

[ Roger Shimizu ]
* Remove non-free image files, and repack as +dfsg.
* Add patch to remove tests regarding to non-free image files.
  (Closes: #854851)

I also enclosed the debdiff for NMU review.
Thank you!

Cheers,
--
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
diff -Nru binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/changelog 
binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/changelog
--- binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/changelog  2015-11-16 07:05:20.0 +0900
+++ binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/changelog 2017-02-15 21:07:15.0 
+0900
@@ -1,3 +1,17 @@
+binaryornot (0.4.0+dfsg-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+
+  [ Ondřej Nový ]
+  * Fixed VCS URL (https)
+
+  [ Roger Shimizu ]
+  * Remove non-free image files, and repack as +dfsg.
+  * Add patch to remove tests regarding to non-free image files.
+(Closes: #854851)
+
+ -- Roger Shimizu   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:07:15 +0900
+
 binaryornot (0.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * New upstream release.
diff -Nru binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/control binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/control
--- binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/control2015-11-16 07:05:20.0 +0900
+++ binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/control   2017-02-15 21:01:09.0 
+0900
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
python-hypothesis, python3-hypothesis
 Standards-Version: 3.9.6
 Homepage: https://github.com/audreyr/binaryornot
-Vcs-Git: git://anonscm.debian.org/python-modules/packages/binaryornot.git
+Vcs-Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/python-modules/packages/binaryornot.git
 Vcs-Browser: 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/binaryornot.git
 
 Package: python-binaryornot
diff -Nru 
binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/patches/0001-Remove-tests-regarding-to-non-free-image-lena.patch
 
binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/patches/0001-Remove-tests-regarding-to-non-free-image-lena.patch
--- 
binaryornot-0.4.0/debian/patches/0001-Remove-tests-regarding-to-non-free-image-lena.patch
   1970-01-01 09:00:00.0 +0900
+++ 
binaryornot-0.4.0+dfsg/debian/patches/0001-Remove-tests-regarding-to-non-free-image-lena.patch
  2017-02-15 21:07:15.0 +0900
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+From: Roger Shimizu 
+Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:14:30 +0900
+Subject: Remove tests regarding to non-free image lena
+
+See Bug #854851
+---
+ tests/test_check.py | 6 --
+ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/tests/test_check.py b/tests/test_check.py
+index 338119e..fbe32d1 100755
+--- a/tests/test_check.py
 b/tests/test_check.py
+@@ -49,12 +49,6 @@ class TestIsBinary(unittest.TestCase):
+ 

Bug#855202: RFS: binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1 [RC][NMU] -- check if a file is binary or text

[Roger Shimizu]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Sean Whitton  wrote:
>
> You need to submit the nmudiff to #854851.

Followed your advice.
Please kindly helpt to sponsor. Thank you!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#855355: RFS: nasm/2.12.02-1 [ITA]

[Paul Wise]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:50:21 + (UTC) Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> side note: the reproducible patch might be changed in something little 
> different
> -const char nasm_date[] = __DATE__;
> +const char nasm_date[] = __DATE_DEBIAN__;

It is far better to just remove build dates, they are very pointless.

> and then use dpkg-parsechangelog to feed that value on CFLAGS
> this way you will get the date from the latest changelog entry.

That isn't necessary because Debian has implemented SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:

https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#854938: RFS: wxmaxima/16.12.2-2

[Sean Whitton]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:31:15PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:01:55AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Secondly, you should revert the compat change in order to be sure of
> > getting a freeze exception for the fix of the important bug.
> Too late, as the previous wxmaxima upload was done after the freeze.

Thank you for noticing this, Andrey.

Gunter: I can upload this to unstable for you if you fix the changelog
terminology.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#854938: RFS: wxmaxima/16.12.2-2

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:01:55AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Secondly, you should revert the compat change in order to be sure of
> getting a freeze exception for the fix of the important bug.
Too late, as the previous wxmaxima upload was done after the freeze.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#854938: RFS: wxmaxima/16.12.2-2

[Sean Whitton]

control: owner -1 !
control: tag -1 +moreinfo

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:57:54AM +0100, Gunter Königsmann wrote:
>   * Resolved an incompatibility with the gcl debian is currently shipped
> with.
> (closes: bug#853787)
>   * debian/compat: Updated the standards version to 10.

Firstly, this terminology is not correct.  The standards version is not
the debhelper compat level.

Secondly, you should revert the compat change in order to be sure of
getting a freeze exception for the fix of the important bug.

Thirdly, your Vcs-Git repository is not up-to-date -- it doesn't include
this upload.

Thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#855101: marked as done (RFS: bcron/0.11-1 )

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:55:34 -0700
with message-id <20170217165534.hl4lpwoyiyo5g...@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#855101: RFS: bcron/0.11-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #855101,
regarding RFS: bcron/0.11-1 
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
855101: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855101
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bcron"

* Package name : bcron
  Version  : 0.11-1
  Upstream Author  : Bruce Guenter 
* Url  : http://untroubled.org/bcron
* Licenses : GPL-2+
  Programming Lang : C
  Section  : admin

 ${S:Long-Desc}
 .
 This package contains the bcron programs.

It builds those binary packages:

  * bcron
  * bcron-run

To access further information about this package, visit the following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/bcron

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bcron/bcron_0.11-1.dsc

Alternatively, you can access package debian/ directory via git from URL:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/kaction-guest/bcron.git

More information about bcron can be obtained from
http://untroubled.org/bcron

Changes since last upload:

  * New upstream release
  * Force dependency on bglibs-2.*
  * Refresh patches
  * Do not assume ${USER} value in tests.sh
  * Restore default bcron-spool socket location
(Drop 0002-Spool-socket-is-var-run-.bcron-spool-instead-of-var-r.diff)
  * Enable hardening=+pie

Regards,
  Dmitry Bogatov
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:23:33AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bcron"

I granted you DM permissions.  Thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

Bug#855202: RFS: binaryornot/0.4.0+dfsg-0.1 [RC][NMU] -- check if a file is binary or text

[Sean Whitton]

control: owner -1 !
control: tag -1 +moreinfo

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:49:11PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "binaryornot" as [RC][NMU].

You need to submit the nmudiff to #854851.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#845710: removed Vcs fields

[Roger Shimizu]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Tim Kuijsten  wrote:
> The Vcs-* links are removed since the debian directory is not included in the 
> official repo.

I guess you misunderstand Sean's words.

There're two types of Vcs:
 - upstream Vcs, which should not contain debian/ folder. (but if it
contains debian/, it should still have way to work out)
 - debian packaing Vcs, which Sean requested you to make

BTW. Vcs-* in d/control file is the 2nd type listed above.
So please create one with your packaging files, and add the Vcs info
back to d/control.
Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#840739: RFS: gudhi/1.3.1+ds-1 [ITP]

[Roger Shimizu]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Gard Spreemann  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 18:46:46 CET Roger Shimizu wrote:
>> Dear Gard,
>>
>> I cannot sponsor the upload. But here's my review that I hope it's helpful.
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> Thank you very much for your helpful feedback. I believe I have
> rectified some of the below.
>
>> Here're the items need to be fixed:
>> - missing in debian/copyright, not GPL-3+ license:
>> cmake/modules/FindEigen3.cmake
>> cmake/modules/FindTBB.cmake
>> include/gudhi/Contraction/CGAL_queue/*.h
>> data/points/COIL_database/images/*
>> doc/*/*.png
>>   Better to ask upstream to confirm license of those image files.
>> Usually license of image files is different from the code. If it's not
>> sure simply remove it from "debian source" repack.
>
> Good catch! I'm sorry for overlooking this. I'll get to work
> clarifying the licenses and/or stripping out these.

I mean there're src files under other than GPL-3+, which is totally fine.
But you need to sort them out, list all the licenses and their src files.

Please take a look at my package as example:
- 
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/shadowsocks-libev.git/tree/debian/copyright

>> - lintian reports:
>> I: libgudhi-dev: spelling-error-in-copyright unneccessary unnecessary
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Other comments, nice to have:
>>  - it's more convenient if you can export your work to some modern
>> SCM, such as git
>>the review will be easier if doing with such SCM
>>you can omit the final releasing commit, so if there's something
>> still need to work, you don't have to push forcefully.
>
> Done; https://git.nonempty.org/debian-gudhi/
>
>>  - add Vcs-* line to d/control (depends on the above item)
>
> Done.
>
>>  - bump to debhelper 10
>
> Done.
>
>>  - wrap and sort Build-Depends & Depends list in d/control
>
> Done.

Great!

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Gard Spreemann  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 20:47:07 CET Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 18:46:46 CET Roger Shimizu wrote:
>> >
>> >  - have separated -doc package
>>
>> The documentation shipped with upstream's source is rather
>> limited. They instead ship a dedicated tarball for documentation
>> [1]. I intend to package it too, and have it provide the -doc
>> package.
>>
>> Does this sound sensible to you?
>
> Scratch that. My package now generates the doxygen documentation and
> builds a -doc package.

Great!

>> I'll upload a new version to mentors.debian.net when I hear back
>> from upstream regarding the missing copyrights.
>
> Upstream say they will take into account my remarks regarding
> licensing for the next release. I'll upload a new version to mentors
> when that happens.

I guess only image files need to confirm, right?

We can wait for the version you're satisfied with.

> The version on https://git.nonempty.org/debian-gudhi/ has diverged a
> bit from the mentors one meanwhile. Most importantly, it now builds a
> -doc and an -examples package. Any comments would be greatly
> appreciated.

No problem about the divergence, git repo is just easy to track what
you've changed.

Look forward to your updated upload next time.
Thanks for your effort!

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: owner -1 j...@debian.org



>Feel free to contact me for sponsorship as I'm an alot user and 
>also>fixed/filed a couple of bugs together with upstream. I'm thus very 
>interested
>in keeping this package in Debian.


well, I leave you the sponsoring then :D

thanks!

G.

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi Jordan,

Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2017-02-17 11:11:35)
> >I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into 
> >collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore.
> 
> 
> lets review:
> a) PAPT seems more appropriate
> b) "alot (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=medium"
> this never went in unstable, please merge the two changelog entries together 
> with the correct
> author attributions
> c) #846314 <-- please fix it
> d) please close #792108 in the correct "new upstream release" changelog
> e) #701806 wontfix?
> f) the runtime dependencies needs to match the versions on setup.py
> and if oldstable/stable already have higher versions, you can just drop them 
> and let
> python:Depends fill them correctly
> g) please consider using pybuild for building it
> h) please consider bumping compat level to 10

You may also want to close bug #792108 with that release.

You may also want to add yourself to debian/copyright if your changes are
substantial (like switching to pybuild and compat level 10 might be).

Feel free to contact me for sponsorship as I'm an alot user and also
fixed/filed a couple of bugs together with upstream. I'm thus very interested
in keeping this package in Debian.

Thanks!

cheers, josch


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Roger Shimizu]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Simon Chopin  wrote:
>
> to review anyone's work. As far as uploading goes, I'm fairly sure my GPG
> key has expired.

FYI. if your key hasn't been compromised, it's easy to extend the
expiration date [0].

[0] 
https://riseup.net/en/security/message-security/openpgp/best-practices#use-an-expiration-date-less-than-two-years

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Jordan Justen]

On 2017-02-16 23:59:07, Simon Chopin wrote:
> I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into
> collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore.

I'm sorry. I meant to say that I planned to put it into git under the
PAPT, not collab-maint. So, the change would be moving from svn to
git. I did apply to be added to the alioth PAPT project.

-Jordan


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi 
>Jordan contacted me a few days ago, I gave him complete 
>permission to adopt the package, as I've been for all intent and 
>purposes, fallen MIA


thanks!
>While I am a DM, I haven't been 
>active in the Debian community for something like two years (nor have I 
>been using Debian). Thus, I don't feel qualified to review anyone's work. As 
>far as uploading goes, I'm fairly sure my GPG key has expired.


maybe you can ask to remove your key then :)
better "retiring" than getting removed!
(this way one day you will be allowed to come back easily, even if you aren't a 
DD)

>For these reasons, I kindly ask that anyone with the inclination would review 
>and upload the package.


sure

>I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into 
>collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore.


lets review:
a) PAPT seems more appropriate
b) "alot (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=medium"
this never went in unstable, please merge the two changelog entries together 
with the correct
author attributions
c) #846314 <-- please fix it
d) please close #792108 in the correct "new upstream release" changelog
e) #701806 wontfix?
f) the runtime dependencies needs to match the versions on setup.py
and if oldstable/stable already have higher versions, you can just drop them 
and let
python:Depends fill them correctly
g) please consider using pybuild for building it
h) please consider bumping compat level to 10

other stuff LGTM

G.

Bug#855354: RFS: alot/0.5.1-1 [ITA]

[Simon Chopin]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:37 AM Gianfranco Costamagna <
locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote:

> control: owner -1 !
> control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
>
> >But, if I am able to adopt this package, then I would move this under
> >debian's collab-maint project.
>
>
> where did the current maintainer orphaned the package?
> did he acked the changes to add you on uploaders list?
> He is a dm, why can't he sponsor it?
> >  * New upstream release (Closes: #848150).
> >  * Add Jordan as uploader.


> what about: #784723 #814460 #821429 #846314?
> they should have patches/pending tags, but you are not closing/fixing them.
>
> Please ask the current maintainer to review your work
>


>

Jordan contacted me a few days ago, I gave him complete permission to adopt
the package, as I've been for all intent and purposes, fallen MIA

While I am a DM, I haven't been active in the Debian community for
something like two years (nor have I been using Debian). Thus, I don't feel
qualified to review anyone's work. As far as uploading goes, I'm fairly
sure my GPG key has expired.

For these reasons, I kindly ask that anyone with the inclination would
review and upload the package.

I do have reservations about moving the package from the PAPT umbrella into
collab-maint, but it's not my call anymore.

Cheers,
Simon