Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Michael Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> «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.
That's only true if you're happy with all of the changes being reverted in
the next maintainer upload.
If you're not happy with that, then no, NMUs do not help with this.
Rather, they are a passive-aggressive way of *forcing* a maintainer to do
work to incorporate changes that they already decided they didn't want to
incorporate. That may be appropriate if what's actually happening is that
the package is orphaned, but when it's a disagreement over how the package
should be maintained, it's more likely to just start a revert war, which
doesn't make anyone better off.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>