[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream


this should all be prefaced with the disclaimer that i'm not actually
using lilo at the moment, but i thought i'd throw in something due to
some of the comments/posturing that i've been seeing here.

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:44:05AM +0400, William Pitcock wrote:
> Have fun.  When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be
> reconsidered for inclusion in Debian.
> In the meantime, the original plan continues.

actually, i don't think you have any say about what software can and
can not be in debian, that is the sole privilege of ftp-master.  your
options are (a) to claim you still want to maintain the package and
continue to do so, or (b) ask for its removal by ftp-master.  given your
comments here i think if you were to claim (a) there would be a decent
case for someone to take to the tech-ctte.

ftp-master, if they're aware of this argument, may just say "why not
orphan it instead?".  but regardless, if someone else is interested they 
can just follow that removal with a new upload using their name as
Maintainer, and then again it's up to ftp-master to accept or deny it.
given that there may be an active upstream and maintainer, and the
software is otherwise DFSG-compatible, i don't see why they would deny
such a new upload.

of course, it would be a lot nicer if you could just hand over the reins
of the current package to those who have been asking for them, to avoid
some un-needed overhead...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: