Bug#747438: RFS: ckeditor/4.3.5+dfsg1-1 [RC]
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
> 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).
I have modified the changelog.
>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.
Why ? The maintainer is busy and I commit myself to help him. he does
not plan to abandon the package.
Bastien
>
>> 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: