Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Keith Packard Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Orphaning mu-editor, firmware-microbit-micropython, and their (build)-deps Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:10:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sat Apr 20 00:05:38 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.1 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6 X-Greylist: delayed 551 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bendel; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:05:17 UTC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21799 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/875xwcewkv.fsf@keithp.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 40 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: Debian Python , Hans-Christoph Steiner X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:56:00 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <875xwcewkv.fsf@keithp.com> X-Original-References: <00bbcfe2-53ba-4fad-88b6-c195d632e985@at.or.at> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15774 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Now Keith can rebase his changes unto that. My changes involve stripping the non-DFSG elements out of the package, and that requires shipping a non-upstream .tar.gz file for the source archive. Because of that, I'm using a pure git process and not bothering to generate pristine tar bits -- there's no usable upstream tarball anyways. I'm willing to continue to maintain this package using that process, but I don't really have any interest in using the existing python packagers process because I don't think it applies in this case. =2D-=20 =2Dkeith --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw4O3eCVWE9/bQJ2R2yIaaQAAABEFAmYjBJAACgkQ2yIaaQAA ABE+vg/6AujGFSS5B/WOAZyPz/vZwNVTz9PxlH1/CL+hszF3mm2UBcFSOOXEJ/2g KuD16ECER+rRmEReljk2tHxMyCDBdYhEk/J6xET5jNGx0SBuqeVbQ3ME/Ziq++o3 DlujATPBANDzBhVFtoy32WUwVtiB7OXqKhje1b1sESQI+hI/DEH6iEVz5ezw8qnt JHSCcEque5hAGOmBvhOMPwys18QUgapJmCTex2Yhu1RX17MZ5/9pZiSg0mo70juZ 6WocyKQwxHNc/FW59dJFKmj1QvL7eK98FLEQqhi0jokn1Yv4A8H31eE4+N54RvxB 3ieVnxdkwSyH5u5UPcoaVUk0JN4fqVeIh6VeUx3B1hmkjXT/azgJCRwrRwr+RcpN G49PHLVWIDtjb3Mn4PhOW2it4BuHxgHmrvQ+69k6bnoFWNgCO1k8uMVL0IHbEzvz ZpVhdB5BmRonQdYz249JsYT0SQC9txFXV3FZyxwwAIEzUu4x4k0BNyp1Q7C3E/kM lGmmtXPJjbt3CaVGy5csJVzRA1Mr1FAoMgVSYg8YMHMTz4Ljb4cneSq5uno/fgY8 mL9MeVsbp3u8D9c5hZmYW9rm5HtKSJWvYn6ix0z4EweS3D8KdXwG2vOrcc8LdZ61 nYvQz/7UzN+6unRj7D2wBot17fJWlhG5+//dFsXN1WQxulTDhA8= =pb3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--