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

Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>     2.  Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
>          the package into a better maintained state.

Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained
package and the concept of NMUs together does not help. They do not
belong together, and only blur both concepts, so that we only can loose.

You NMU because you aren't the maintainer, that's the "Non Maintainer"
in "Non Maintainer Upload" and a fundamental difference. Developer's
reference clearly states for good reasons that the concept of NMU is
house-keeping in someone else's house. It's not your house (yet), so
please respect that. We have too many people already, continuously
ignoring NMU guidelines and are uploading NMUs with cosmetic changes
(e.g. 3.0 conversions) instead. Let's not endorse this.

However, what you are proposing is right that: Make your footprints in
someone else's package first, and find out later if someone complains
loud enough. That's everything but respectful and eventually not going
to help finding a way to head over a package to a new maintainer in a
way which is a not prone to conflicts.

I am not saying you should not NMU packages. People should not be afraid
to NMU - but do it an respectful, minimally invasive way. Do the
cosmetic perfectionist stuff later, when you are the official maintainer.

with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: