Re: RFS: new powertop version
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote:
> nearly a month passed, since I asked for sponsorship for the new
> powertop package [0] and addressed the concerns which Paul Wise had
> with it. Sadly Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, did not react and I
When you claim the someone else is not responding, please include a
reference to your contact attempts. This makes it much easier to verify
your claim.
In this case I believe that you should "salvage"[1] the package (i.e.
become maintainer). The last maintainer upload has been made more than
two years ago and we keep maintaining it with NMUs. This is stupid.
To me the basis for a salvage is clear. There has been no maintainer
upload in more than two years. Patrick does not currently have a key in
the keyring. What more is needed?
Barring opposition from fellow developers, I suggest that you become
maintainer for the powertop package and prepare a maintainer upload
taking over the package. To make this less controversial, please include
a list of your previous contact attempts.
> would like to see the new powertop version in Debian, since it
> addresses 13 bugs, with at least one of them being important. Hence I
> am asking again: Could someone please sponsor the package?
I would like to see this updated as well.
> [0] http://rbw.goe.net/jw/debian/pool/powertop/
When publishing packages, *always* sign them. Even if I have no path to
your key, I could still establish some trust in the persistence of your
key usage.
When you bump standards version, please tell what changes were needed to
make the package comply with the newer policy. Often enough this can be
"no changes needed", yet I find this informative.
In debian/control the powertop-dbg has a redundant Priority: extra.
The csstoh patches appear noise. Why not merge them into one patch?
Also your patches suggest that you use some well known three-letter
version control for the Debian packaging. Can you publish that and add
Vcs- headers?
The copyright file appears to be still referring to 2.0. There is no
pevent anymore, cause it uses traceevent now.
I think the copyright file should be fixed before an upload to unstable.
If you don't fix this now, you'll get a reject via NEW.
Helmut
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00540.html
Reply to: