Bug#747438: RFS: ckeditor/4.3.5+dfsg1-1 [RC]
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bastien ROUCARIES
<roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
>> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, bastien ROUCARIES
>> <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Package: sponsorship-requests
>>> Severity: important
>>>
>>> Dear mentors,
>>>
>>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ckeditor"
>>>
>>> * Package name : ckeditor
>>> Version : 4.3.5+dfsg1-1
>>> Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream]
>>> * License : GPL-2+ or MPL-1.1+ or LGPL-2.1+
>>> Section : web
>>>
>>> It builds those binary packages:
>>>
>>> ckeditor - text editor for internet
>>>
>>> To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:
>>>
>>> http://mentors.debian.net/package/ckeditor
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
>>>
>>> dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/ckeditor/ckeditor_4.3.5+dfsg1-1.dsc
>>>
>>> More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com.
>>>
>>> Changes since the last upload:
>>>
>>> * New upstream release (Closes: #741337).
>>> * Upgrade debian/copyright in order to use uscan
>>> automatic repack of non free file.
>>> * Add myself as maintainer.
>>
>> This package isn't orphaned, and the current maintainer doesn't seem
>> to be MIA according to mia-query, so unless the previous maintainer
>> approves of this, this would be considered a hostile takeover. Perhaps
>> consider a minimal-change NMU to fix whatever RC bugs currently affect
>> the package, if the maintainer is unresponsive right now?
>
> According to :
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742990#48
>
> It agree so no hostile takeover. BTW change are so massive that NMU is
> not suitable.
At the very least, please document this in debian/changelog (i.e. link
to that specific message in your changelog, and mention that you've
added yourself as an _Uploader_ and not the Maintainer of the
package). For the sake of abiding by Policy though, I'd feel a lot
more comfortable sponsoring this if due procedure was followed, i.e.
ask the current maintainer orphan the package by filing a wnpp bug
report, and adopt it yourself. The maintainer's last message was sent
on May 6, so he should be active enough to orphan the package himself
(perhaps send him a friendly email with instructions?) rather than
going through a lengthy process via MIA.
> BTW the lintian warning is spurious and I plan to fix on the lintian
> side (I am the lintian maintainer).
That doesn't matter in this case since the lintian issue isn't the blocker.
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: