Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
On 24/05/10 at 01:15 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Really, issue is "Debian does not have reasonable rule for hijacking or
> automatic orphaning".
I fully agree. There are many packages that are staying with totally
outdated upstream versions simply because the maintainer went inactive,
and MIA was not able to orphan his packages (because the maintainer,
despite being inactive, might still reply "I will come back in a month
and fix everything").
> If some maintainer is totally quiet on BTS report for over 2 months,
> he should loose maintainer-ship. The same goes if the maintainer has
> not uploaded new upload after reminded by bug report for 2 months
> without reply, he should loose maintainer-ship. If he had "I am
> maintaining this" without clear technical reason not-to-package new
> version, this should apply too. (If he has real reason, of course he
> should keep it.)
... but I disagree with having a strict rule that allows everybody to
hijack a package. I think that it should be the responsibility of the
hijacker to prove that he made enough efforts to contact the maintainer,
and that he is qualified to maintain the package.
For example, the candidate hijacker could send an "intend to hijack foo"
email to debian-devel@, with the reasons why he thinks the package
should be hijacked (date of last maintainer upload, list of open bugs
without any response from the maintainer, new upstream versions which
were not packaged, MIA status, etc).
That email would send receive public review, and if nobody objects after
some time, the hijacker could proceed.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |