[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dealing with maintainers who are MIA

On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:11:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Contacting first, waiting for permission, etc are polite and desirable,
> but you don't *have* to wait for weeks in between, especially for packages
> with RC bugs and with the freeze approaching. Also, you are allowed to
> fix non-RC bugs and such too.

	OK Here's a prime example. lcdproc currently in stable and
unstable as lcdproc_0.3.4-3. It hasn't been updated in over a year.
Current maintainer is Brian Bassett <brianb@debian.org>. I've emailed
him at least 4 or more times at a few email addresses over the past couple of
months with no reply. Lcdproc is now upto version 4 something. 

	Now I could just NMU as this would fix a couple of bug in BTS,
but to fix the upstream bugs I need to jump to version 4 of lcdproc
which has moved to a client server model. It therefore makes more sense
to create a multiple binary package with lcdproc-server and
lcproc-client. Which complicates things. 
	Now I've actually packaged all that up since I use it myself.
But what's the correct way to go about things. Do I NMU, a bit dificult
since I want to split up the package do I take it over or what etc etc.

	I think we need some sort of procedure in place where  package
automaticaly gets orphaned maybe something like this.

a)	Somone notices a package hasn't been updated in say over 6
months but there has been alot of upstream development and there are
bugs against it in BTS.

b)	They email the maintainer. Wait a month. Email again wait a

c) Place a prospective abandonded package warning against the package in

d) If the maintainer still does nothing about it in another 2 months
then put the package up for adoption.

	I think this sort of thing is going to be a recurring problem as
we get more and more developers. 

John Ferlito
Senior Engineer - Bulletproof Networks
ph: +61 (0) 410 519 382

Attachment: pgpIRoGpm6KhB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: