Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 07:33:48PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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 outdated upstream versions simply because the maintainer went inactive,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.
I share your concern too.
> 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.
This is good procedure. What I wanted is additional general guide line
for such an action. Without it, I bet thee will be some personal
encounters. (More detailed guide line may be needed.)