Re: Bug#960986: RFS: fortune-zh/2.96 [ITA] -- Chinese Data files for fortune
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:03:00AM +0800, atzlinux 肖盛文 wrote:
> 已经在 git 提交。fortune-zh 这个软件包是中文团队维护的软件包，像 Uploaders
> 字段这类细节规则，我们团队内部是可以讨论确定。
Debian has its own conventions in the Maintainers/Uploaders fields and
there is no reason for Chinese dev team to override them.
> 曾经的上传维护者，继续留在 Uploaders 字段，也可以，当然去掉也行。
Don't make such a simple fact equivocal.
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 05:24:02 GMT the original maintainer had changed the bug
into an Orphan bug from an RFA bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910181
According to Debian policy section 3.3
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#the-maintainer-of-a-package
"An orphaned package is one with no current maintainer. Orphaned
packages should have their Maintainer control field set to Debian QA
Group <packages@qa.debian.org>"
But by convention we don't waste resources uploading the package again
merely dropping the maintainer from the control file.
Plus, "Orphan" means "the maintainer can no longer maintain the package"
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#orphaning-a-package
Further more, the original maintainer stated that they had no interest in
maintaining this package anymore, and was going to drop this package in #910181
Various strong evidence indicates that the original maintainer should be
removed when someone else takes it over.
The "继续留在 Uploaders 字段，也可以，当然去掉也行" statement is
dismissing the facts and making simple things equivocal.
> 一个属于团队维护的软件包，原 Uploaders
> 不想继续维护了，优先在团队内部找人接手吧，
Debian has its own standard process for maintainers to drop packages:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#orphaning-a-package
The original maintainer had no reason to override the community convention.
Imposing one's opinion on the team development workflow is impractical.
> 如果有人愿意接手，就不一定要给
> wnpp 发 ITO，直接内部转移即可。
You dismissed the fact again. The orignal maintainer had sent the bug
#910181 on 3 Oct 2018. And clearly no one had intented to take that
over.
This physical world is driven by facts instead of subjective thoughts.
On the other hand, the original maintainer clearly stated the following
in #910181 :
"Note, this is a native package. Adopting this package means
that you are going to be the new upstream."
Just curious, are you prepared to become the new upstream, even if this
package cannot be more simpler?
Reply to: