Re: mol modules for kernel 2.6.14
> > I filed a bugreport to fix it. It is the job of the maintainer to
> > implement it;)
>
> Yeah, ok, a quick reality check here. The mol maintainer died tragically in
> july, leaving the package all but abandoned, i did jump in because nobody else
> did and because mol was blocking the 2.6.12 kernel transition, and because i
> used to work with Jens on the 2.6 powerpc kernel packages. I don't use mol and
> am not interested in being the sole maintainer of it, except to make it build
> with newer kernel packages, and did write so when i announced the mol 2.6.12
> packages here, so read the mailing list archive.
>
> The alternative being naturally to kick mol from the archive, or at least the
> mol-modules, so they don't interfer with the kernel packages, as mol seems
> abandoned upstream and there is no real interest in doing real maintainership
> of them for debian, altough Otavio proposed himself.
As did I, on the condition that no one else wanted the job. When you took
over mol, I understood that you would take care of the package in whatever
way you see fit. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled about this reality check
business now.
And before you ask: setting up collaborative maintainership for a package
is something I'd do with people I've worked with successfully before.
Otherwise, I'd prefer to take the blame alone.
Michael
Reply to: