Le Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:02:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:01:54PM +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > > 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've sent my first mail the 19th of September. The first mail about a proposal is from the 28th and is I think the result of my questions on #debian-qa as I was seeking for an ACK to orphan the package. My 2nd mail from the 2nd of October was CC to the mia team. The mia team is also aware of the situation. > > 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? I actually went on with what I started as I was seeing the discussions on debian-devel about this continue for weeks. I already used similar procedure in the past without any complains. I've open this bug to only to conform to the proposal even if I find that making public statements like "eh look that guy has disappeared for the surface of the earth" is not a good idea nor desirable. But I should probably have raised my concerns about this on debian-devel. > 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. Then some MTA must be terribly broken. Let's hope that Bart's mail will arrive at destination using the alternative email address. The proper fix of the serious bug is requiring to split packages, I feel that this is a bit too much for a NMU, isn't it? If I had the time and the energy I would start again the discussion about lowering strict ownership of the packages and making team maintenance mandatory because I feel, especially in that kind of case, that this is actually hurting the quality of some packages. Laurent "that loves to justify himself" Bigonville
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature