Re: [mlmmj] distribution "dead upstream" discussion

On 1/27/21 4:58 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> MLMMJ is of very low need for maintenance, both upstream or in the
>> Debian package. So much that our Debian source package is bit-rotting,
>> and would need a real clean-up (to switch to the dh sequencer, for a
>> start, and probably many other stuff...).
> 
> Yes, the Debian mlmmj package is bit-rotting some, because there's no
> new versions to upload nor new bugs to prompt making a new upload. I
> don't see the point of updating the debian/rules file to dh unless MLMMJ
> development is picked up again, but I am interested in doing that if
> that happens.

The point is that it helps to keep your package up-to-date for new
stuff. For example, the current version of the package doesn't call
dh_strip_nondeterminism which is a new thing, and which dh calls.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)