Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>>> about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in Debian where the
>>> existing procedure for orphaning packages is perceived as too
>>> heavy-weight and we believe that there are packages that aren't being
>>> cared for, aren't orphaned, and that someone else would work on if the
>>> status were clearer.
>
>> It is a proposed solution to the above issue, so it is intimately
>> apropos to the discussion at hand in my opinion.
>
> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules
with a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained
packages, so I personally can't see where it would break down.
> It's
> certainly fine for people to try it, though, and I don't think it requires
> any changes to any procedures for people to do so.
A procedure change is important because it empowers salvagers; giving
them a clear set of steps to follow while also giving them the
confidence that their actions are the approved/correct ones; just like
the existing NMU rules. It also makes it clear who is in the right if
the issue does blow up to the Tech Committee.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: