On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:05:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes: > > > Again, what material effect does that have? Does it prevent the person who > > has primary interest in the package (whom we commonly term "the maintainer") > > from updating it? It might mildly interest QA people, but since they NMU > > packages in bad shape regardless of whether or not they're "orphaned", and > > they don't tend to fiddle with packages which are in good shape regardless > > of orphaned status, I'm still at a loss to determine what practical effect > > the policy you're proposing will have. > > It would make it possible for Debian developers who would be able to > properly maintain the package to do so. If the package is improperly maintained, someone else will take it over sooner or later and give it the love it needs, regardless of what is in the Maintainer: field. Ignoring questions about the package (whether machine-assisted or through pure human means) is not a sign of an improperly maintained package. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature