[ISSUE] Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[ISSUE] Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[slatian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

New issue by slatian on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142

Description:
### Package name

xdg-utils

### Package homepage

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-utils

### Description

xdg-utils 1.2.1 got quite some bugfixes compared to the 1.1.3. It will also be a requirement to upgrade to KDE Plasma 6 in the future.

The package is currently orphaned.

I'm offering to maintain the package myself, but that would put me in the double role of being a developer and package maintainer for the same project which I'd like to avoid.


### Does the requested package meet the package requirements?

System

### Is the requested package released?

Yes

Re: Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

New comment by classabbyamp on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142#issuecomment-2088460990

Comment:
Please don't request an update of a package, [We have a script for that](https://repo-default.voidlinux.org/void-updates/void-updates.txt). However, a quality pull request may help.

Re: [ISSUE] [CLOSED] Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]

Closed issue by slatian on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142

Description:
### Package name

xdg-utils

### Package homepage

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-utils

### Description

xdg-utils 1.2.1 got quite some bugfixes compared to the 1.1.3. It will also be a requirement to upgrade to KDE Plasma 6 in the future.

The package is currently orphaned.

I'm offering to maintain the package myself, but that would put me in the double role of being a developer and package maintainer for the same project which I'd like to avoid.


### Does the requested package meet the package requirements?

System

### Is the requested package released?

Yes

Re: Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[meator]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

New comment by meator on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142#issuecomment-2092419720

Comment:
> The package is currently orphaned.
> 
> I'm offering to maintain the package myself, but that would put me in the double role of being a developer and package maintainer for the same project which I'd like to avoid.

If you're a `xdg-utils` contributor and you'd like to maintain its Void package, that's great! People who are intimitely familiar with the project being packaged are the best fit for a package maintainer.

It looks like there already is a PR: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/50145 You can comment on it asking for the change of maintainership if you change your mind.

Re: Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

New comment by classabbyamp on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142#issuecomment-2092426937

Comment:
we would highly prefer maintainers be actual void users, not upstream developers, and we would also prefer package adoptions only come from people with a history of contributions to void

Re: Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 328 bytes --]

New comment by classabbyamp on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142#issuecomment-2092426937

Comment:
we would highly prefer maintainers be void users, not upstream developers, and we would also prefer package adoptions only come from people with a history of contributions to void

Re: Package request: xdg-utils 1.2.1

[classabbyamp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

New comment by classabbyamp on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/50142#issuecomment-2092426937

Comment:
we would highly prefer maintainers be active void users (not those who are just upstream developers), and we would also prefer package adoptions only come from people with a history of contributions to void