Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> Michael Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> 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.
> Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too
> many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively
> abandoned package. It also requires *more* skill than adopting the
> package would otherwise, since you have to be good enough at Debian
> packaging to make minimal chnages within some arbitrary packaging scheme.
> In other words, it requires as much or more skill than doing NMUs, whereas
> adopting a traditionally orphaned package is much easier.
Very much agree. I am much more likely to work on a neglected package if
I can use the tools that I'm familiar with from my own packages. The
prospect of having to reverse engineer the packaging before I can make
any useful changes is very discouraging.
I am *not* a DD, so I think I'm qualified to say that if the goal of the
proposal is to attract new contributors to help with existing packages,
being allowed to change the packaging style is crucial.
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C