Bug#459868: debian-policy: Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> writes:
> I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not
> maintained, or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned,
> regardless how this is documented in the source package.
The concern that a couple of people had was that they felt it implied the
package would be orphaned without any effort on the part of the current
maintainer. We'd instead like to encourage the current maintainer to
orphan the package rather than just letting it sit until someone does it
for them. That's where the possibility of using should here was; that
would make it clearer that it's the job of the maintainer to do the
"It is orphaned" is ambiguous as to what actor will take that step.
Although, I suppose, if people follow the cross-reference, it is spelled
out in the Developer's Reference.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>