Re: Development standards for unstable
Frank Küster wrote:
> 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.
Well, maybe the actual situation would be better reflected if one of the
interested parties adopted the package and retitled the O bug to RFA?
> 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.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the existence of more
packages that should be orphaned invalidates dealing with those that
There's 169 orphaned packages today, why not do something about them?
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/