Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
> the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
> an Uploader.
Is that in addition to or instead of orphaning the package?
If someone notices that a package is in need of greater attention, but
cannot commit to attending it themselves, it's important that the
packages is marked at least as needing help.
I understand the entire point here is to mark packages which are
effectively abandoned as orphaned, so that others can see them in the
wnpp news for instance.
It's certainly better if a new foster maintainer can be found for the
package right away, but it should IMHO not be mandatory. Prospective
maintainers, those that "want to help Debian" but don't know were to
start, will be able to adopt an orphaned package, but not to salvage
one in most cases.
Take it as a three body encounter:
- a package with no effective maintainer;
- a developer who notices the problem;
- a prospective maintainer.
Regards, Thibaut.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=5uyj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: