Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
]] Michael Gilbert
> 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
> >> possible.
> > «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.
I think you misunderstood me. Given there already existed a package in
the archive, which was in good shape for the release, changing that
package would be a bad idea. Every change carries risk with it, however
small. Whether it's the maintainer or an NMUer making that change is
> 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.
I find it hard to classify a port that has a number of popcon
submissions somewhere between alpha and sh4 as having «many users».
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are