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

Re: Bug#989254: project: Maintainer email of package `pmount` seems wrong.

Control: reassign -1 src:pmount
Control: reassign 989251 src:pmount 0.9.23-3
Control: forcemerge 989251 -1
Control: tag 989251 -a11y

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 04:05:54PM +0200, Drei Eck wrote:
> I am reporting this here, since accourding to the Debian bug tracking
> system automatic "Acknowledgement" emails bug reports for `pmount` are
> sent directly to it's maintainer to an email address that is not
> reachable, so bug reports specifically for `pmount` I expect to never
> reach anyone responsible.

The package is orphaned, so there is nobody responsible for it.

> The problem ist:
> The maintainer for `pmount` is in the database as to be "Vincent
> Fourmond <fourmond@debian.org>", but that email address bounces as I
> found out earlier today. This is the bounce I got:

the "fix" for this would be to drop that line for the manpages
completely, which likely makes sense anyway.

> So I ask if the maintainer information for the package `pmount` can be
> corrected, and if that has been done previous bug reports for `pmount`
> can be re-forwarded to the corrected maintainer address?

Since the package is orphaned and there is nobody responsible, there is
nobody to forward th bugs to.
But no worries, it's not like they are lost: they are filed under

> Btw., Today I have reported three issues related to `pmount`:

Unless you find somebody interested in this package, the most likely way
to get them fixed is to fix the bugs yourself and follow this page
https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/ to find a sponsor.

                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: