osrm-backend_26.4.1+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

On 5/2/26 7:29 AM, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Am Sa., 2. Mai 2026 um 06:27 Uhr schrieb Sebastiaan Couwenberg:
>>
>> You've reintroduced a package, but not reused the existing repo:
>>
>>    https://salsa.debian.org/debian-gis-team/osrm/
> 
> That is intentional. It has a new source and a binary names.

To me it looks like you reinvented the wheel somewhat poorly, specifically the repacking.

Has the upstream situation changed to make having OSRM in stable releases viable?

That's why the package got removed: https://bugs.debian.org/802772
  
>> You also didn't follow any of the team conventions documented in our policy:
>>
>>    https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/
> 
> What particular?

Announcing intent to package:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/packaging.html#itp

Starting a new package:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/packaging.html#git-new-package

  Specifically following the indentation style from that and our other packages.

Configuring the lintian hook:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/packaging.html#git-pbuilder-hooks

Creating the git repo:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/packaging.html#git-repository-on-salsa

Tagging a release:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/packaging.html#git-tag-release

Using quilt:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/policy.html#quilt

gbp.conf:

  https://debian-gis-team.pages.debian.net/policy/policy.html#debian-gbp.conf

I wouldn't have had to push a bunch of changes and reconfigure the Salsa repos if you'd have followed these conventions like we do for all our other packages.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
  PGP Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1