Dear Boyuan, On 25-04-2022 20:44, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
+unar (1.10.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Orphan the package (take over package maintenance) via + ITS process. (Closes: #1008569)I maybe wrong but I was wondering if this is correct. Section 5.12 in Debian's Developers Reference [1] clearly says: Note that the process is only intended for actively taking over maintainership. Do not start a package salvaging process when you do not intend to maintain the package for a prolonged time. If you only want to fix certain things, but not take over the package, you must use the NMU process, even if the package would be eligible for salvaging. And, in this case you salavaged the package with the intention to orphan it not to maintain it.
Today I received the 'Work-needing packages report' [1] that notified me that there are three reverse dependencies of unar. Two are maintained by me and the a11y team (I didn't realize that when I say the message by Sudip). The third is maintained by you. It appears to me that you "salvaged" unar because of that (I could be wrong, please let me know). I think it would have helped (at least I would have read the message from Sudip with more sympathy for you) if you would have made that clear in your original ITS message and/or in a follow-up message to Sudip.
Do you think it would be a good idea if you co-maintain this package with the a11y team? That way, you don't need to take the sole ownership (which you apparently didn't want) but can still easily keep an eye on it (and continue the work to package 1.10.7).
Paul[1] https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/E1nkESG-00066x-Pi@quantz.debian.org
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature