That whole thread makes me question current system packaging best practices even more than I already do. For example-- where is the introductory email from the

That whole thread makes me question current system packaging best practices even more than I already do. For example-- where is the introductory email from the would-have-been packager to upstream saying, "Hello, I'm so-and-so. I'd like to take a stab at packaging Pale Moon for so-and-so. Any docs or issues I should take into consideration before beginning? Sincerely, Obvious First Step" Especially considering Pale Moon is probably in that category of "top 20 most complex packages" for their system. I'll give another example of similar non-existent communication with upstream that ended up wasting my time as a Debian user: "Dear Firefox, Hi. It's the firefox-esr packaging team from Debian. Our current package for it is about to go EOL. Since our release schedule is slow and our security policy doesn't scale, we make an exception for Firefox by backporting the new ESR version in its entirety. Anything special we should know about major version 60? We know that some of the archs we support are considered tier 3 archs by Firefox, and we'd hate for an upgrade on our stable release to break FF completely for lots of users who run Debian Stretch on arm devices, for example. Especially given that nobody can build with debug symbols on some of our supported archs, making it difficult for them to adequately report the bug to you." I upgraded to Buster because of this. I.e., Firefox's "ESR" holds more meaning for me than Debian's "stable" does.