Comment 14 for bug 1888749

Thank you for the comprehensive write-up in the bug description. This is very useful.

I have one minor complaint about the upload. Your changelog entry says that this is a "No-change" rebuild but the debhelper-compat version has been tweaked. I don't think this qualifies as "No-change"! Please adjust the changelog so it's not misleading. I appreciate that for some a "No-change" claim might be interpreted to not include a debhelper-compat change, so I'd be happy if there were just an additional line pointing out that change. Could you please paste or attach a replacement, and I'll replace the existing upload that's in the queue?

I don't see any reference to existing tests on Focal. Could you perhaps test this in a Focal PPA before we accept this to the archive please? This would be useful to verify that required dependencies are present. If there are any issues, this would save round-tripping through reviews and the archive to fix it up.

Note for the SRU team: before release, we should check that britney is happy for installability.

Normally I'd ask for an established Ubuntu development team to be committed to maintaining this package on an ongoing basis. Otherwise we might end up spending effort on this now only for the package to rot in the next release. I appreciate that you have done all you can to get as close to this request as possible. I think that given the minimal downside it's OK to give you the benefit of the doubt on the "established" part. sup-mail exists in Eoan and in Groovy, so it seems to me that restoring it in Focal will smooth things for users at little risk.

I confirmed that the package already exists in Groovy and is identical apart from the above change. The version number will work fine. I have not checked for installability problems on Focal - I'd expect that to be done in advance of upload as above, combined with britney running against Focal when the package is in focal-proposed. An archive admin may want to look deeper before accepting.

+1 from me (subject to the updated changelog and Focal-built package testing), but as this is an exceptional case I'd like a further +1 from another SRU team member. I'll ask around for a further review.

We'll also need a +1 from an archive admin as the package is in the new queue (the two additional +1s would be fine coming from a single person wearing both hats IMHO).