On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:26:08AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > again, orphaning means doing a QA upload. a gentler path would be an NMU. > > again, I don't why we need a new process here. > Orphaning is something typically done by the maintainer themselves[1]. that is true and it's also true that orphaning is typically done by someone else as part of an QA upload. > If someone else does it unilaterally, wouldn't that come closer to a > hijack? right, one should not orphan without consent of the maintainer or the MIA team. here are 101 packages waiting for an upload setting the maintainer to the QA team: https://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html > Would it feel more appropriate if I called it ITO (Intent to Orphan) > instead of ITN and use the 21 days waiting period + upload to > delayed=10? IMO it would certainly feel appropriate to use *existing processes* instead of inventing new ones *and* excercising them on the archive immediatly prior to wider discussion. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ No mas pobres en un pais rico!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature