Joël Krähemann: > Hi all > > Seriously, this is the wrong approach. > > I am the upstream of a package. I have dependencies but am unsure > about how to monetize my software or fund my dependencies. > > Might be I decide once to stop work full-time on it. Just because > someone feels uncomfortable about the situation of a particular package, you can't take it away of > his guidance. Because it > is wrong. > > And it doesn't solve any problem. Rather introduces a more driven > situation. Having 2 or even > more upstream developers. > > Bests, > Joël This isn't about upstream ownership of software, this is about salvaging the Debian package specifically, where the package has been neglected for a long time and whose maintainer isn't responsive to bug reports or email contact, and allowing for a process for another maintainer to fix up the package. Without some standard process for forward progress, the package remains in a broken state and there are a lot of situations in which NMUs (Non-Maintainer Uploads) aren't appropriate. I've been in the situation of relying on software in Debian that was broken, and before this process there wasn't a known path of how to deal with that. Matter of fact that's how I started getting into Debian development in the first place. It is unfortunately not uncommon to find a package [un|under]maintained such that the pacakge in Debian needs salvaging. I hope this helps clarify. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature