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

Re: "Hijacking packages for fun and profit" BoF at DebConf

> Other than all the above, I have read interesting ideas on objective criteria
> in Steve McIntyre's report.  Basically my point of this e-mail is that I
> welcome a debate on changing the MIA and NMU procedures to introduce objective
> criteria with short periods of time so that it becomes easier for anyone
> interested to improve quality of packages in Debian.

Taking over a package is not an NMU nor is it waiting for someone to be
completely MIA. An NMU is usually once for fixing bugs (so not updating
packaging, not moving it to another patch or revision control system and
the like). Being MIA is usually not even answering mails or IRC pings in
general for an extended time frame which is quite a bit further than not
caring about one package IMHO. Currently the MIA Team does not orphan
individual packages unless the maintainer agrees, so usually it's
orphaning all or none.

The normal procedure to take over a package should be consent with the
maintainer or the formal adoption procedure. Though I think it would be
good to also be able to take over a package without the need to declare
the maintainer MIA. One month without reply to an intent to take over
mail (or should that be bug report?) seems fair when the maintainer is
not on VAC (which usually is private), so I guess the devil is in the



Reply to: