On Wed 01/04/2026 16:59, Laurence Tratt wrote:
> I've been using bupstash for several years, and while it's fairly good,
> it's now very clearly unmaintained [1]. For such a critical piece of
> software, especially one that has not yet made it to a 1.0 release (and
> that has some of the rough edges that implies), that worries me.
> Personally I will soon be looking at alternatives.
> 
> To avoid other people using this, I wonder if we could/should somehow mark
> bupstash as "unmaintained" to nudge people not to start using it (and, if
> they are using it, to consider whether they need to move)?
> 
> 
> Laurie
> 
> [1] https://github.com/andrewchambers/bupstash

Makes sense.

OK?


diff --git Makefile Makefile
index 61274fa214d..38a45f2c3e2 100644
--- Makefile
+++ Makefile
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ COMMENT =		encrypted and deduplicated backup tool
 V =			0.12.0
 DISTNAME =		bupstash-v${V}
 PKGNAME =		bupstash-${V}pl1
+REVISION =		0
 
 CATEGORIES =		sysutils
 
diff --git pkg/DESCR pkg/DESCR
index b84b34da7eb..4a140a649f0 100644
--- pkg/DESCR
+++ pkg/DESCR
@@ -16,4 +16,5 @@ Some notable features of bupstash include:
 
 bupstash is beta software, while all efforts are made to keep bupstash bug
 free, we currently recommend using bupstash for making REDUNDANT backups where
-failure can be tolerated.
+failure can be tolerated; furthermore, users should be aware that the tool is
+unmaintained upstream and may be removed in the future.