On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:01:52AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Yeah, there's that too. We're probably best off just saying that every > > package needs a maintainer. Hopefully it's clear enough since we're > > saying that the package needs one, not just the software. > Here's a patch which implements that. Objections or seconds? > + If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to > + maintain a package, it is orphaned. Awkward use of passive; this wording implies that any package whose maintainer doesn't have time to maintain the package is automatically in the "orphaned" state, when this is definitely not the case. > + <footnote> > + The detailed procedure for doing this gracefully can be found > + in the Debian Developer's Reference, see <ref id="related">. > </footnote> > </p> > </sect> Moving this out of a footnote into the body of policy would probably make this hang together better. Perhaps: If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to maintain a package, it will be orphaned according to the procedure described in the Debian Developer's Reference (see <ref id="related">). The maintainer then becomes <tt>Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org></tt>. These packages are considered maintained by the Debian project as a whole until someone else volunteers to take over maintenance. > <p> > - List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of > - the package, if any. If the package has other maintainers > - beside the one named in the > - <qref id="f-Maintainer">Maintainer field</qref>, their names > - and email addresses should be listed here. The format of each > - entry is the same as that of the Maintainer field, and > - multiple entries must be comma separated. This is an optional > - field. > + List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the > + package, if any. If the package has other maintainers beside > + the one named in the <qref id="f-Maintainer">Maintainer > + field</qref>, their names and email addresses should be listed > + here. The format of each entry is the same as that of the > + Maintainer field, and multiple entries must be comma > + separated. > + </p> s/beside/besides/ sounds better, IMHO. Seconded, with or without these changes. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature