Re: Debian QA Policy Draft
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> > set to: "Orphaned Package <firstname.lastname@example.org>"
> I've seen only 'Debian QA Group' (and variations) in Maintainer: fields
> so far - isn't that more suitable? Users will be scared to use packages
> like that, and we'll have less chances to get some new maintainer for
Seconded. If a package is maintained by the QA group it is not
unmaintained. It's even possible that it would be in a far better
state than some maintained package.
> BTW what can we do with maintainers who can't be reached by e-mails,
> and their packages need attention? How can we know that they will/won't
Please take a look at debian-policy where I've posted the 2nd half of
Vincent's proposal. The QA team need to be able to do NMU's if the
maintainer doesn't reacot or isn't reachable or some such.
> I wouldn't like 'publishing' these maintainers/packages on debian-devel,
> not even in debian-private. Creating a 'black list' of 'non-caring'
> maintainers is not acceptable.
It would be a proper action to write to -devel that package x, y and z
need a new maintainer and people who are interested should speak up.
non-caring maintainers and maintainers who aren't reachable are different
groups. Well, I could name at least one for each who isn't in the
> There is a solution, maybe, in creating minilist (say, email@example.com) for
> the members of Technical Comittee, where a developer can discretely approach
> when in doubt about delicate matters? I understand that noone likes bosses
> (neither do I), but really, we have to have a body that can take control
> when things get out of hands.
The tech committee has a private group debian-ctte-private.
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.