Yes, I believe an RFH would be more suitable in this scenario.
P.S. I personally can consider co-maintaining, however I cannot really guarantee any particular level of availability for maintenance tasks at this point.
Le Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:53:48 +0400,
Ilyas Gasanov <torso.nafi@gmail.com> a écrit :
> In this case, can I ask you to create a Request For Adoption (RFA) on
> WNPP channel, so that other potential maintainers would be able to
> take note of this?
Mono is already listed on https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption
The main reason there is no RFA yet is that there are still many things
I want to fix in the current packaging (it accumulated many problems
over the years).
Since I took over its maintenance I’ve been working on fixing them, my
current priority order being:
1. Fix the problems reported on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mono
2. Switch to the new upstream maintained by the WINE team
3. Remove *unused* binary packages to reduce the maintenance scope
(anything with reverse dependencies or reverse build-dependencies is
going to stay)
Of course, even without having submitted this package explicitly for
adoption, I would be more than happy to see other people joining the
maintenance of the mono source package. If they have objectives
different than mine it’s not a problem, on the contrary: each
co-maintainer could then focus on the parts they really care about.
I think there is a wnpp report category more appropriate when asking
for co-maintainers… Maybe RFH?