On Wednesday 14 October 2009 15:42:21 Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 10/12/09 07:02, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Fixing bugs is very welcome, especially RC ones. Actually, you can save > > time to fix more RC bugs by not fixing the less important ones in the > > packages that you try to rescue :) I still recommend to not include a new > > upstream release in the NMU you are proposing. Especially because the > > package is poorly maintained: the side effect of the NMU is to rescue the > > package from removal, so if nobody feels responsible for it, it is safer > > to not introduce changes that can introduce new bugs. > > Sorry to say, but this is counterproductive. AFAICS the new upstream > version works better than the old one, and it includes almost all bug > fixes done for Debian. If you suggest to ignore upstream's new version > and add patches to the old version instead, just because the package > maintainer is not interested anymore, then this leads to just another > dead package. > > I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma > has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. There is a established procedure for taking maintainership for a package from a non-responsive maintainer. If you'd like to take maintainership, please start that process. In the meantime a suitable NMU should be prepared until (if) you become the maintainer. If you don't have time, I wonder if this is a good place for collab-maint to step in? -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. firstname.lastname@example.org ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.