X-Debbugs-CC: byang@debian.org > I believe what you are doing is exactly called "packaging hijacking", which is > unfavorable. Since the original maintainer did not volunteerly orphan the > package and that the Debian MIA Team did not kick in, we must not assume that > the original package maintainer has given up the maintenance responsibility. > > Debian has a readily-available process to handle current situation (ITS) and I > believe you also know it. We should follow this procedure to take over package > maintenance in order to ensure smooth takeover where no argument would take > place. > > My suggestion is to convert this orphaning report to ITS report and start ITS > process immediately according to > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#package-salvaging > . > > This mail copy is also sent to the original package maintainer (Franck > Joncourt). Franck: please let us know whether you are still going to maintain > this package in Debian. If there's no response, we will continue with the ITS > process and take over the maintenance of package psad in Debian. > > Thanks, > Boyuan Yang He was a maintainer of fwsnort according to the bug report [1]. That's where I made this decision. I was in doubt if the package is orphaned directly or needs to go through ITS. But I've never seen this before and seeing bug reports like this that the package has simply been orphaned. I had emailed him, let's not fill his inbox. I have a little over a year and I'm still learning to deal with situations. And yes, I've read the documentation, link below: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#orphaning-a-package [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=831274 -- Cheers, Leandro Cunha Debian Contributor and developer.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Binary data