severity 692492 normal thanks On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:01:54PM +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > Package: auditd > Severity: serious > Version: 1:1.7.18-1.1 "serious" severity refers to bugs that are blockers for a release. A missing maintainer is not a serious bug. The other serious bug stands on its own - but does not impact the release because it only applies to experimental. Please do not inflate the severity of bug reports, this causes extra work for release tracking. > I've tried to enter in contact with Philipp Matthias regarding the > status of the audit package. I've sent a first mail a bit more than a > month ago and a second one 15 days later. But I unfortunately didn't > get any answer so far. And where did you cc: this mail for a public record, to what address did you send it, and what was written in this mail that should give the maintainer reason to prioritize responding to it? Private mails should not be a justification for expedited orphaning of packages. With this bug report you have *now* used a proper channel for notifying the maintainer that you want to salvage the package; so the clock starts now, not whenever your private mail was sent. > I'm planning to orphan (and upload my changes for experimental) "soon" > if nobody objects. Are you deliberately ignoring the ongoing discussion on debian-devel about why "nobody objects" is not an acceptable standard for orphaning packages? According to LDAP, the maintainer has been active in the BTS as recently as two days ago. An NMU for a serious bug is obviously ok (including in experimental), but you can consider this an objection to any such "soon" orphaning. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature