Dear Maintainer,

As talked a bit over a week ago I'm filing a wishlist request for a
newer Template Toolkit package. Some background for the record:

Currently 2.27-1 is in the archive for all releases from old-old-stable
up to unstable, upstream released that version in 2016. While it seems
that this has not caused any compatibility fallout for an impressive
amount of time, showing how stable this ecosystem got, that seems to
slowly change nowadays.
E.g. the recently bumped Bugzilla version 5.2 requires
at least version 3.008 and it's likely that other dependees that are
still actively developed will also require a newer version sooner or
later.
If the update would be done now it would quite likely make the cut for
Debian Trixie next year and it would make backporting it to bookworm
slightly easier (e.g. for us) too.

thanks for your consideration,
Thomas

I only saw after reporting this that another user was faster, so
this is a duplication of #1081785 [0] and can be closed, sorry for
the noise!

[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1081785

- Thomas

merge 1081785 1082398
thanks

Greetings!

I'm merge these bugs so that you get notifications and such when this
is fixed. Hopefully very soon!

Regards,
Mako




<quote who="Thomas Lamprecht" date="Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 07:28:03PM +0200">

Hi Benjamin,

Thomas started work on preparing the update, so I wondered how we should
proceed:
- git repo on salsa? debian/ namespace?
- I'd start with `gbp import-dscs` to get the old version into the git
  repo, the packaging doesn't seem to require too many changes for the
  new upstream version
- any prefered branch layout? standard gbp okay?

I can also take care of the upload after testing reverse-dependencies,
if you want.

Fabian

FWIW, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1087106 seems to
be another duplicate report ;)

I started testing our WIP package and all reverse-dependencies still
build fine except for openguides. That one fails because the CGI plugin
got split out into its own perl distribution, which I guess means it
should be packaged on its own and go through NEW. We can prepare that,
but now I wonder whether it would not make sense to move both
libtemplate-perl as well as this new source package under the umbrella
of the perl team?

I pushed our WIP state to my salsa namespace:

https://salsa.debian.org/fg/libtemplate-perl

and also triggered a reverse-autopkgtest run using debusine:

https://debusine.debian.net/debusine/System/work-request/70965/

Let me know what you think, in particular whether it makes sense to move
forward with the perl team suggestion!

Fabian