Re: Idea for maintaining packages up for adoption
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> That's exactly the point of this discussion. I would probably do the
> same... so I thought that we could setup a friendly environment allowing
> a group of people to maintain those packages with the help of external
> contributors which are more interested in the package.
> And I found that the debian-perl group is working quite well maintaining
> all their packages in a single subversion repository where all
> developers in the group have write access.
> So I proposed something similar.
Sure, that sounds reasonable to me, and I'm happy to import any packages
that I'm doing custodial duties on into such a repository when it exists.
I would like to get some feedback on how to handle the maintainer field of
such packages. As I noted in passing earlier, I think it does serve some
useful purpose for someone to say "I'm the primary point of contact for
problems" for a package even if they're not *really* maintaining it in the
sense that one would think for a normal Debian package. Otherwise, why
not just leave the package orphaned and use the QA list as the contact
Accordingly, I was playing with the idea of adopting the package and then
immediately filing an RFA bug on it (or maybe not closing the O bug and
just retitling it?) so that there's a listed maintainer but it's still
obvious that the package could use a maintainer who cares about that
Maybe this doesn't fit with how other people would want to work, though?
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>