Re: Development standards for unstable
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> wrote:
> That said, I do believe that if a package is unpopular enough that
> nobody picks up maintaining it, even while it's orphaned, what the
> prospects of the package are, and how much use it has to prolong its
> life extraordinary. If you're sufficiently committed to a certain
> package, you can just as well adopt it after all.
Hm, well, no. I do particularly care for one orphaned package,
lmodern. But since it currently doesn't have any (real) RC bugs, I have
more important things to do than adopt it on behalf of the
debian-tetex-maint list (or talking Norbert Preining into creating it
from his texlive sources). If any work is really badly needed, someone
of us will for sure step in; but that doesn't mean that we're happy to
have the additional burden. I'd rather have it marked as orphaned, so
that a new maintainer "candidate" can clearly see that it needs care,
than formally adopt it while we can in fact only care for RC bugs.
Therefore I don't think that merely being orphaned is a good criterion
for removal; especially not until we make sure that all unmaintained or
badly maintained packages are in fact orphaned.
 and the important one, which might turn out to be RC
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich