Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Is he MIA if he's not missing? The point is that just because a package
> > is on the WNPP list as orphaned doesn't mean it's unmaintained, and just
> > because a package isn't doesn't indicate how well it's maintained, if at
> > all.
>
> Then this is a QA/maintainer accountability problem that ought to be
> addressed, rather than using it as an excuse for keeping packages in the
> archive when there's no individual willing to have his name in the
> Maintainer: field.
So what? And if there wouldn't be an individual who'd do a double
somersault for the package then what? The package's unmaintained and
that's it.
I'd support though an initiative for somehow taging packages that are
obviously MIA.
What _would_ be nice is some common feeling on when a package can be hijacked
or NMU'd.
It's a strange feeling to NMU when you're not sure if at the very moment
the package is uploaded the DD's going to jump on you shouting bloody
murder. Also applies to base packages. But then again, maybe it's a very
sensitive area.
*t
--
to
ma
s
p
Reply to: