Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
- From: Michael Gilbert <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:23:07 -0400
- Message-id: <CANTw=MOkBMNwXg1RZimYOLZnFfnGaJ1=Gx4DhSvzWVKJXqMzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20121027093615.GA27593@xanadu.blop.info> <email@example.com> <20121030135212.GA10585@an3as.eu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20121031070545.GB32333@an3as.eu> <20121031080420.GB11941@client.brlink.eu> <email@example.com> <20121031183400.GA17521@master.debian.org> <CANTw=MNCgtiFWg9XC6ZJf9Pp+O67njyxf=xP7Uyv6GOdy0Z3jg@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CANTw=MO6TO6mqp4VAsc4EaOgfLQXNM5h=ZsHHjWuNwd4Ayxivg@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com>
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> > The new upstream release did not include any particularly compelling
>> > changes for wheezy, which is why I did not update to the newer
>> > upstream version.
>> It may not have include changes interesting to you, but there was
>> certainly interest to others in the hurd improvements, and I think we
>> should really try to be accommodating to hurd porters as much as
> «For wheezy» is operative in my statement. hurd is not a wheezy release
> architecture, and it's actually not even part of Debian any longer any
> more than HPPA or AVR32 is. Making changes for such architectures, when
> we're approaching a freeze, is pretty high on my «stuff I'm not going to
> spend time on» list.
That's where nmus help. Someone that does care and does have the time
can go ahead and get the features interesting them (and likely many
other users) to work.