Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > What work?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have in mind, for example, the ifupdown script. The maintainer has
> not made a maintainer upload for years, and so maintenance of the
> package has been proceding by NMU. But NMUs cannot do more than fix a
> few kinds of crucial bugs. It is clear that the maintainer doesn't
> want to maintain this package and has had other priorities for a long
> time. There is nothing wrong with this. Other people have
> volunteered to maintain the package, and been rebuffed or ignored.
As described, this is an administrative issue, rather than a technical
issue.
However, you strongly imply that technical issues exist.
For the technical committee to weigh in on this, the interested parties
would need to speak up (the constitution says so, and it makes sense).
You don't have to have multiple parties speaking up, but the people that
want action do need to lay out what the technical issues are.
There's a huge amount of ground that could be covered at by a script
like ifupdown -- there's no reason to not have alternatives for it.
No reason, except that involves work.
Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technical issues,
and since the maintainer of that package is one of the DPL candidates, I
think you should make an effort to be clear about what you're saying here.
There can be good reasons for leaving a package with NMU'd fixes (for
example: if the maintainer has no way of testing the fixes, and has had
no reason to upload changes for any other reason).
Anyways, the technical committee is for resolving technical conflicts,
and so far you've not specified any unresolved technical problems.
You've mentioned administrative issues, and you've hinted at technical
problems, but ...
... but ifupdown does not seem to me to be an example of how a package
maintainer can "avoid the technical committee" by not acting.
If there were actions the technical committee needed to take, inaction
on the part of the package maintainer wouldn't prevent the technical
committee from reaching a decision.
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: