Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:32:40AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
>> How to solve the following problem: Assume a package with wishlist bugs
>> filed lagging behind upstream and the maintainer refuses to package any
>> newer upstream, not even into experimental. And in general there is an
>> interest (from several people) in having the new upstream versions
>> packaged. Can this package become salvaged in some way by the ITS/ITO
>> procedure? I think this is a rather common case, a cautious maintainer
>> and some more adventurous salvagers.
> Can you give a few examples, if this is "a rather common case" ?
wine: http://bugs.debian.org/585409 (new upstream pushed via nmu)
python2.6: http://bugs.debian.org/679030 (new upstream pushed via nmu)
mlocate: http://bugs.debian.org/669368 (new upstream could have been
pushed via nmu before the freeze, but it was prepared too late)
<many others I'm sure>
It's not that common to encounter maintainer's with this kind of
unproductive attitude, but when it does happen it seems to occur
rather often in important packages. Thus, we should really have a
documented guideline for these cases. The go ahead and fix it via nmu
is one solution that has been quite effective so far and seemingly
uncontroversial to the maintainers that had been getting in the way.