<html><head></head><body><div>Hi folks,</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Sorry for the long delay. Myself and, I think, Andrew have been short on time.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, my apologies, I've been very busy the last couple of months.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>The transition is basically ready to go, but I've been rethinking the need<br></div><div>to drop request-tracker4, given it will all be quite tight. It turns out that<br></div><div>request-tracker4 is still supported upstream (<a href="https://bestpractical.com/release-policy">https://bestpractical.com/release-policy</a>)<br></div><div>and there's no specific EoL set. When we first started the plan to<br></div><div>deprecate request-tracker4 in Debian, I think we were assuming otherwise.<br></div><div>The package is in good shape and I believe otherwise ready to be released.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If Andrew is in agreement, I therefore think we should let request-tracker4<br></div><div>be released with the next release. We can reconsider whether to drop it from<br></div><div>the release + 1 at a more leisurely pace. The work we've done to date will not<br></div><div>be wasted effort.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I'm okay with keeping request-tracker4 in Bookworm, as Dominic says, the</div><div>package is in good shape.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Andrew</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span><pre>-- <br></pre><pre>Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand
andrew@etc.gen.nz |
Catalyst Cloud: | This space intentionally left blank
https://catalystcloud.nz |
</pre></span></div></body></html>