Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
>> wine: http://bugs.debian.org/585409 (new upstream pushed via nmu)
> This is a good example where talking helped to gather all views on all aspects
> from all involved people. My impression is that finally the maintainer allowed
> new co-maintainers doing things differently. That does not really match Lucas'
> proposal which is about marking packages as orphaned so that they can be taken
> over by a new maintainer.
It matches my proposal where interested contributors apply nmus as
needed to improve the situation, then eventually become uploaders.
>> python2.6: http://bugs.debian.org/679030 (new upstream pushed via nmu)
> This does not seem to be an example of "the maintainer refuses to package any
> newer upstream". This seems to be just an NMU, not related to Lucas' proposal.
As we were getting close to the freeze, python2.6 was in a poor
situation where it was going to ship with 2.6.7 in wheezy, and thus
lack a whole bunch of security updates. Julien Cristau made the
decision that this would be unacceptable, and prepared a new upstream
nmu resolving the inactivity.
This is certainly a case of a maintainer acting in an unproductive
manner. The previous 2.6.7 upload was made almost an entire year
prior to that.