Debian Bug report logs - #986709
rsnapshot: not suitable for stable release

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: RM rsnapshot -- RoM; RoQA; no longer maintained by upstream

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:54:31 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: mtecknology@debian.org

Despite the very occasional upstream commit/merge, the current upstream project
owner has made it clear (via email, issues [1], and action) that they don't
intend to maintain this project. The last upstream release was in 2019 and they
have indicated they don't plan to make any new releases.

This project is essentially dead and no longer suitable for inclusion in the
Debian archive... or for use on any system. This package should be removed and
anyone who was using it should find an alternative solution.

[1] https://github.com/rsnapshot/rsnapshot/issues/191#issuecomment-562460327

Thanks,
-- 
Michael Lustfield

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org>

To: 986479@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: #986479 RM rsnapshot -- RoM; RoQA; no longer maintained by upstream

Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 16:39:48 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Please don't remove rsnapshot - it is a far too important package to lose.

IMHO the issue is really minor: rsnapshot is a stable software which had
very few changes over last several years.

Even if unmaintained upstream it will remain usable for years to come.

As a project we are perfectly capable to apply patches here and there, as
required even without upstream support.

Also I'm not aware of any conceptual alternatives to rsnapshot. In a sense
it is a unique software implementing a special (and extraordinary useful)
approach to backups.

Thanks.

-- 
All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov
 GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B

---

A man who knows a subject thoroughly, a man so soaked in it that he eats
it, sleeps it and dreams it - this man can always teach it with success, no
matter how little he knows of technical pedagogy.
 -- H. L. Mencken

---

ZERO flu deaths reported during 2020-2021 season. Never in medical history
has an annual disease completely disappeared to be replaced by another one
with the exact same symptoms.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100

Of the 11 open PRs, several are marked as "needs tests", and all but 
three look like new features, not bugfixes. Two of the three bug fixes 
are for rsnapreport, a tool that to be blunt I don't think is very 
important. One is for LVM- and BTRFS- specific issues so is hard for 
people without a very specific configuration to test.

There are three broad themes in the open tickets.

1. help requests, which ought to be on the mailing list.

2. feature requests

3. minor problems with argument parsingin some unusual situations,
   especially when args contain whitespace.

The only one of those themes that is even slightly important is the 
third, and they are mostly unfixable without breaking existing working 
configurations.

Finally, the most recent release is almost completely up-to-date with 
the master branch:

https://github.com/rsnapshot/rsnapshot/compare/HEAD..1.4.3

So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has 
exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.

-- 
David Cantrell

Message #30 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk>

Cc: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:39:28 -0500

On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote:

> [...]
> So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has 
> exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.

I'm not going to strawman my justifications; it's not terribly relevant anyway.
Absolutely anyone is free to disagree with me and continue maintenance of the
package. If needed, I'll even sponsor the upload.

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers (read 1-2, start at 3)

Message #35 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gionatan Danti <g.danti@assyoma.it>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: rsnapshot: not suitable for stable release

Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 12:37:44 +0200

Hi all,
for what it is worth, I am against removing rsnapshot from Debian. While 
it is not actively developed anymore, it is stable software and as far I 
know it has no know vulnerabilities (being a wrapper around rsync).

borg (or duplicity) is not an equivalent solution, and I really like to 
continue using rsnapshot as-is on Debian (and other distro).

Thanks.

-- 
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Message #40 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Fabio Muzzi <debianbugs@kurgan.org>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bad idea

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:01:58 +0200

Removing an useful and stable software such as rsnapshot is not a good idea, IMHO.



-- 
Fabio "Kurgan" Muzzi

- IZ4UFQ -

"Il massimo danno con il minimo sforzo"

Message #45 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Removal certainly seems like the wrong solution

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:52:45 -0400

Now Debian has a release with a useful package missing.  What ever
happened to orphaning a package if you didn't want to maintain it anymore?
I certainly see nothing that make the claim that it isn't suitable for
release justified.  It is working very well and does not appear to have
any serious bugs.  Good thing you didn't remove it from sid.  The removal
from bullseye was clearly wrong and unjustified.  Not the correct way
to handle a package (I am surprised it got removed in fact).

As for the idea restic is a useful replacement, not a chance.  That design
is way too complicated and they are not even at a release where they
declare the api or repo format stable.  rsnapshot nicely provides a
backup that you can look at with standard tools and recover things
however is most convinient.

And someone did just do some updates upstream and make a 1.4.4 release
a few days ago.

-- 
Len Sorensen

Message #50 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Pinkus <sgpinkus@gmail.com>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 10:28:32 +1000

On Fri, 28 May 2021 15:39:28 -0500 Michael Lustfield 
<michael@lustfield.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
> David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has
> > exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.
>
> I'm not going to strawman my justifications; it's not terribly 
relevant anyway.
> Absolutely anyone is free to disagree with me and continue 
maintenance of the
> package. If needed, I'll even sponsor the upload.
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers (read 1-2, start at 3)
>
>

Hi Michael, I don't understand this. Wouldn't it be easier if you 
orhpaned the package since it's already in stable?

Thanks,

Sam.

Message #55 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Pinkus <sgpinkus@gmail.com>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 10:32:11 +1000

FYI linked issue and summary of issue from upstream perspective: 
https://github.com/rsnapshot/rsnapshot/issues/279#issuecomment-860001348

Message #60 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dirvish is unmaintained since 2005, but still available in bullseye

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:26:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

given that dirvish is still available in bullseye, although it's
unmaintained for more than 16(!) years now, it really makes me wonder
why rsnapshot has been removed. Please add it back, it's removal doesn't
make any sense.

Bye...

    Dirk

-- 
Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>
GPG Public Key: D01B367761B0F7CE6E6D81AAD5A2E54246986015
Sichere Internetkommunikation: http://www.retroshare.org
Privacy Handbuch: https://www.privacy-handbuch.de

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #65 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ryan Thoryk <ryan@thoryk.com>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Rsnapshot removal

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:39:20 -0500

Upon upgrading my backup server tonight, I found that rsnapshot was 
removed from Debian Bullseye.  In my opinion, this shouldn't have happened.

I currently use it for backups on my main production server, and even in 
my previous Linux admin job, I had implemented it for company systems. 
There is no practical alternative to it, it's just a wrapper around 
rsync, nothing else works like that as far as I know.  I also noticed 
that a newer version is in sid, couldn't that have been migrated to 
testing and released?  I've been using it since 2014 (daily) as far as I 
know.  I could look for alternatives, but it works too well in my opinion.

To add what I think is a very good point for this, I recently opened a 
bug report for a package called statsvn, which didn't even work in both 
stable and testing, apparently nobody even verified that it worked 
before releasing it in Buster, it would fail with a java version check. 
 Rsnapshot, a fine working package, was removed, but a perpetually 
broken package wasn't.  Statsvn hasn't been released upstream for 
apparently 11 years.  For now, I might see if I can use the sid version 
on stable.

-- 
Ryan Thoryk
ryan@thoryk.com
ryan@tliquest.net

Message #70 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Timo Sigurdsson" <public_timo.s@silentcreek.de>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: rsnapshot: not suitable for stable release

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 14:25:18 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I was also unpleasently surprised that rsnapshot is not in Bullseye and there's no mention of it in the release notes either. I don't how the process or rules in Debian are for such a case, but please find a way to either reintroduce rsnapshot into the stable distribution or at least provide a bullseye-backports package for it. It's simply a useful and mature piece of software.

Regards,

Timo

Message #75 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Brooks <john@fastquake.com>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400

On Fri, 28 May 2021 15:39:28 -0500 Michael Lustfield 
<michael@lustfield.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:56:47 +0100
> David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > So what, exactly, is unmaintained about it? Looks to me like it has
> > exactly the amount of maintenance that is required for mature software.
>
> I'm not going to strawman my justifications; it's not terribly 
relevant anyway.
> Absolutely anyone is free to disagree with me and continue 
maintenance of the
> package. If needed, I'll even sponsor the upload.
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers (read 1-2, start at 3)
>

>

Michael,

I think it is important that you clarify or modify your stance given 
that upon further inspection by others here, there are no serious 
outstanding functional or security issues with the program. Even 
self-asserted justification (i.e. "I just don't want to maintain it 
anymore, so find someone else") is acceptable; that is your right as a 
volunteer. But it would have been prudent to either defend your initial 
assessment of the program as no longer suitable for inclusion, or 
acknowledge that you may have been incorrect. Otherwise the issue is 
just stuck in limbo.

Additionally, in response to this very bug, a new upstream release has 
now been issued. In light of this, do you plan to upload the new version 
and continue to fill the role of maintainer for the rsnapshot Debian 
package, or is another maintainer still needed going forward?

I don't seek to impose anything upon you, I just want to see that this 
doesn't fall through the cracks.

Thanks
John Brooks

Message #80 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: John Brooks <john@fastquake.com>

Cc: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:13:10 -0500

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400
John Brooks <john@fastquake.com> wrote:

> [...]
> Michael,
> 
> I think it is important that you clarify or modify your stance given 
> that upon further inspection by others here, there are no serious 
> outstanding functional or security issues with the program. Even 
> self-asserted justification (i.e. "I just don't want to maintain it 
> anymore, so find someone else") is acceptable; that is your right as a 
> volunteer. But it would have been prudent to either defend your initial 
> assessment of the program as no longer suitable for inclusion, or 
> acknowledge that you may have been incorrect. Otherwise the issue is 
> just stuck in limbo.
> 
> Additionally, in response to this very bug, a new upstream release has 
> now been issued. In light of this, do you plan to upload the new version 
> and continue to fill the role of maintainer for the rsnapshot Debian 
> package, or is another maintainer still needed going forward?
> 
> I don't seek to impose anything upon you, I just want to see that this 
> doesn't fall through the cracks.
> 
> Thanks
> John Brooks

So... My first response was a wordier version of the message you replied to,
emphasizing the bit where my opinion is moot. What's written below is as much
as I'm willing to dip back into #debiandrama. While reading, please remember
this point (and don't expect further response).


My original request was for a removal, which is a stance I whole-heartedly
still stand by, and which draws from experiences after adopting the package. A
removal like this is basically orphan++ ("I'm afk4eva" vs. "bad package"). That
changed slightly with zeha's bug modifications, but the effect is still largely
the same, with a touch of stability added. (Thanks zeha!)

(sensible action, but likely helps with that "limbo" perception?)
  ^ https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rsnapshot

side note --

  > Additionally, in response to this very bug, a new upstream release has 
  > now been issued. In light of this, do you plan to upload the new version 

  You very correctly point out that a number of fixes and a new release came
  directly in response to certain actions. Unfortunately, we draw very different
  conclusions. (a hint, perhaps?)


I appreciate that you responded to that particular (#30) message of mine, where
I say that I don't intend to stand in anyone's way, and offered to help anyone
interested in package maintenance, while also maintaining my position. This is
important to me because some people have indeed taken a stab at rsnapshot
maintenance; however, they very quickly disappeared when they learned that it
would require more effort than just slapping an updated tarball onto the
packaging.

> and continue to fill the role of maintainer for the rsnapshot Debian 
> package, or is another maintainer still needed going forward?

^ "continue" stopped at the RM-RoQA (note: this tag was not an accident)

The root of why I claim how I feel does not matter is because the end result is
the same. The only thing that's required to override my (strong) opinion is for
someone to pick it up, understand it well enough to confidently claim it's
ready for release (start w/ debian bugs), and that'll be the end of this thread.

Message #85 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Brooks <john@fastquake.com>

To: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>, 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:24:43 -0400

On 2021-09-30 6:13 p.m., Michael Lustfield wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400
> John Brooks <john@fastquake.com> wrote:
> 
>> [...]
> 
> So... My first response was a wordier version of the message you replied to,
> emphasizing the bit where my opinion is moot. What's written below is as much
> as I'm willing to dip back into #debiandrama. While reading, please remember
> this point (and don't expect further response).
> 
> 
> My original request was for a removal, which is a stance I whole-heartedly
> still stand by, and which draws from experiences after adopting the package. A
> removal like this is basically orphan++ ("I'm afk4eva" vs. "bad package"). That
> changed slightly with zeha's bug modifications, but the effect is still largely
> the same, with a touch of stability added. (Thanks zeha!)
> 
> (sensible action, but likely helps with that "limbo" perception?)
>    ^ https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rsnapshot
> 
> side note --
> 
>    > Additionally, in response to this very bug, a new upstream release has
>    > now been issued. In light of this, do you plan to upload the new version
> 
>    You very correctly point out that a number of fixes and a new release came
>    directly in response to certain actions. Unfortunately, we draw very different
>    conclusions. (a hint, perhaps?)
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you responded to that particular (#30) message of mine, where
> I say that I don't intend to stand in anyone's way, and offered to help anyone
> interested in package maintenance, while also maintaining my position. This is
> important to me because some people have indeed taken a stab at rsnapshot
> maintenance; however, they very quickly disappeared when they learned that it
> would require more effort than just slapping an updated tarball onto the
> packaging.
> 
>> and continue to fill the role of maintainer for the rsnapshot Debian
>> package, or is another maintainer still needed going forward?
> 
> ^ "continue" stopped at the RM-RoQA (note: this tag was not an accident)
> 
> The root of why I claim how I feel does not matter is because the end result is
> the same. The only thing that's required to override my (strong) opinion is for
> someone to pick it up, understand it well enough to confidently claim it's
> ready for release (start w/ debian bugs), and that'll be the end of this thread.
> 

Thank you for your reply. I admit I'm rather a dilettante in this area. 
I'm only a user and have had little or no exposure to the Debian 
development process. I didn't even see "RoQA" until you pointed it out, 
and then had to look up what it means — "Requested by the QA team".

And that's about where my ability to contribute usefully ends. My belief 
that the Debian organization and its contributors are generally 
intelligent and sensible leads me to believe that you and the QA team 
have good reasons for removing the package, even if I don't understand them.

I don't know precisely what criteria of stability and quality are used 
to judge whether a package is suitable for inclusion; my outside view is 
that this package is no more broken or unmaintained than the average 
Debian package. The only bug of "serious" severity classification is 
this one. But when my uninformed assessment is at odds with an actual 
Debian maintainer, I have no choice but to assume that there is an 
important factor which I am blind to. I understand that it's not your 
responsibility to teach me just to satisfy my idle curiosity, so we can 
leave it at that.

Thank you for your service.

John Brooks

Message #90 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 16:26:58 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

John Brooks wrote:

> I don't know precisely what criteria of stability and quality are used
> to judge whether a package is suitable for inclusion; my outside view
> is that this package is no more broken or unmaintained than the
> average Debian package.

Esp. when compared to dirvish (see my previous mail), which is
unmaintained for 16+ years, but still available in bullseye. What's the
point in keeping that one while at the same time removing rsnapshot,
which is unmaintained for just a handful of months now?

Bye...

    Dirk

-- 
Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>
Matrix-Adresse: @heini:chat.altum.de
GPG Public Key: 80F1540E03A3968F3D79C382853C32C427B48049
Privacy Handbuch: https://www.privacy-handbuch.de

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #95 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>

Cc: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:28:09 -0500

On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 16:26:58 +0200
Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de> wrote:

> [...]
> Esp. when compared to dirvish (see my previous mail), which is
> unmaintained for 16+ years, but still available in bullseye. What's the

See my note about whataboutisms and strawman arguments
... and thanks for highlighting a perfect example.

Message #100 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: John Brooks <john@fastquake.com>

Cc: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:29:27 -0500

Note: This is a general response, not meant to address rsnapshot specifically.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:24:43 -0400
John Brooks <john@fastquake.com> wrote:

> [...]
> And that's about where my ability to contribute usefully ends. My belief 

My offer to mentor prospective debian maintainers stands. I might not be the
bestest teacher, but I can also teach people where to find smarter people to
teach smarter things. ;)


> that the Debian organization and its contributors are generally 
> intelligent and sensible leads me to believe that you and the QA team 
> have good reasons for removing the package, even if I don't understand them.

If you want to continue believing this, I encourage you to avoid any open
source development, especially WRT distributions. :P

Seriously, though... we're all just humans driven by various motives. Although
rare, changes like this /do/ sometimes come with malice. Other times it's best
of intentions, and sometimes those intentions are flawed.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964139
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/22/22398156/university-minnesota-linux-kernal-ban-research
https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/16/debian_11/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/debian-8-linuxs-most-reliable-distro-makes-its-biggest-change-since-1993/
^ one of these clearly intends to do harm

[ moving back to rsnapshot ]

> [...]
> Debian package. The only bug of "serious" severity classification is 
> this one. But when my uninformed assessment is at odds with an actual 
> Debian maintainer, I have no choice but to assume that there is an 
> important factor which I am blind to.<<

There are definitely options; I'm just one person with an opinion. It's
entirely possible all of my previous reasoning has been permanently fixed and
I'm just too jaded to see that. If such a scenario were to be our present case,
then it would be very easy for someone else to just hop in, grab this, and
maintain (own) it indefinitely (... or until such time it must be retired).

  ^ This could be you, anyone that commented on this thread, etc.

If, however, my $super_notsosecret reasoning still holds water,
then... that won't be so easy and it becomes a self-solving problem.

>>I understand that it's not your 
> responsibility to teach me just to satisfy my idle curiosity, so we can 
> leave it at that.

It's actually very difficult for me to not launch into a long-winded rant, so
thank-you for prompting me to provide this additional explanation.

Cheers,
-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #107 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Boyuan Yang <byang@debian.org>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org, Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 12:43:56 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:29:27 -0500 Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>
wrote:
> [ moving back to rsnapshot ]
> 
> > [...]
> > Debian package. The only bug of "serious" severity classification is 
> > this one. But when my uninformed assessment is at odds with an actual 
> > Debian maintainer, I have no choice but to assume that there is an 
> > important factor which I am blind to.<<
> 
> There are definitely options; I'm just one person with an opinion. It's
> entirely possible all of my previous reasoning has been permanently fixed
and
> I'm just too jaded to see that. If such a scenario were to be our present
case,
> then it would be very easy for someone else to just hop in, grab this, and
> maintain (own) it indefinitely (... or until such time it must be retired).
> 
>   ^ This could be you, anyone that commented on this thread, etc.
> 
> If, however, my $super_notsosecret reasoning still holds water,
> then... that won't be so easy and it becomes a self-solving problem.
> 
> >>I understand that it's not your 
> > responsibility to teach me just to satisfy my idle curiosity, so we can 
> > leave it at that.
> 
> It's actually very difficult for me to not launch into a long-winded rant,
so
> thank-you for prompting me to provide this additional explanation.

I heard of this issue around rsnapshot in Debian in recent months from various
information sources. While I completely understand your opinion, this looks
like another unexpected consequence due to Debian's strong package maintenance
ownership. I am not against your decision, but I am wondering if the following
actions would work for you:

1) Package the latest rsnapshot release 1.4.4 as-is, but still keep this RC
bug open since it is not considered suitable for Stable release, or

2) Orphan package rsnapshot since you find this software not maintainable, or

3) Remove it from Debian archive as you originally planned.

My personal thought is that some actions would be better than getting stuck
here, and I am also interested in the next step. At least I believe doing
nothing does not fall into the category of package maintenance.

Thanks,
Boyuan Yang

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #112 received at 986709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de>

To: 986709@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: rsnapshot is stable, not dead

Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 12:24:23 +0200

Dear maintainer,

could you please give some hints, why you actually think the package is
unmaintainable or whre we can find information about this? This would be
usefull for everyone considering to adopt it.

Message #117 received at 986709-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>

To: 986709-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#986709: adopted rsnapshot

Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 11:56:29 +0100

Version 1.4.4-1

Hi,

With Michael's agreement, I have taken over maintaining rsnapshot. I have just
uploaded version 1.4.4-1.

Thanks.

Mark

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.