Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
> ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
> co-maintenance.
I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn't
really matter what "in most cases" means, what matters is whether
there is any case of someone who is interested in maintaining the
package.
> > Developers are required to orphan packages when they are no longer
> > able to maintain them. We have a rule in Debian that you cannot force
> > a developer to do something, but that you must step aside and not
> > block someone else from doing it in your place.
>
> And the number of NMUs there have been seem like it might indicate
> that other folks' work has been able to continue. Given I'm also the
> upstream author of ifupdown I think it's reasonable for me to expect
> whoever might want to take over maintaining the package to establish a
> good working relationship with me.
The developer's reference manual does not say this is ok. It says it
is not ok. Your correct course of action is to file an RFA on wnpp.
Maintenance through NMU is not acceptible; if you cannot or will not
maintain the package (and nobody is saying you must), then Debian
procedures require you to file an RFA or orphan the package or accept
a co-maintainer.
> > Indeed, I believe he has shown that he is exceedingly poor at
> > time-management.
>
> Thanks for posting this 30m before end of campaigning so it can't be
> addressed with a DPL candidate cap on. Smoothly done.
Actually, I asked all the candidates to describe their own
time-management in detail in message
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00549.html. It is not
my fault that you chose to ignore this request, but that doesn't mean
that it's unfair of my to draw my own conclusions.
Thomas
Reply to: