[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Abandonware in testing (Re: lpr/lpd)

On 25/09/23 14:29, Wookey wrote:
It's actually quite well-maintained, just not by the maintainer:
someone else has uploaded the last 3 upstream versions via

I think this example shows the need for a level of maintainership that sits between "fully maintained" and "orphaned". (Or a rethinking of the concept of "orphan packages".)

Right now in Debian there is a distinction between:

1) maintained packages (Maintainer: "foo")


2) orphaned packages (Maintainer: "Debian QA Group").

State 1 is the desired state of a package: somebody (a single person or a team) looks after this package, packages and tests new releases, and is expected to respond to inquiries (bug reports, MRs, NMUs) within a reasonable time.

State 2 is an undesired state that should be addressed. Somebody from the QA team (= theoretically the whole of Debian) may have a look at it in case of transitions or RC bugs. But what Debian really desires is that somebody will adopt this package and put their name in the Maintainer: field.

What I think is needed is a state 3 (or 1.5) that formalizes what Wookey described: there is an informal group of people that may take care of a package, but they don't feel like having their names attached to it nor want the responsibility of being the ones in charge for timely fixes or quick replies.

The way I picture it, "state 3" packages would have something like "Debian Caretaking Team" in the Maintainer: field (not the usual "QA Group", and have autotests in lieu of a specific person/team that takes care of manually testing the package.

Has such a third category already been discussed or explored?

Gioele Barabucci

Reply to: