On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 03:10:49PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 02:30:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I'd like to propose some procedure for packages that appear to lack > > active maintenance, but where no formal orphaning has taken place. Lets > > have a look for instance at clucene-core: > > > > 1. High popcon[1] > > 2. Important rdepends like libreoffice-core > > 3. Maintainer was contacted in #879296, but there has been no response > > recorded there; the last upload was nearly ten years ago > > 4. Uploader was asked about interest to become Maintainer four > > years ago with no response[2] > > 5. Open bug with patch to solve reproducibly problem #1059805 > > requested by libreoffice maintainer with no progress since > > nearly two years > > 6. Package was NMUed three times in a row (one 64-bit time_t, > > others to fix RC bugs) > > > > One possible solution to consider would be to move the package to Debian > > Commons maintenance, host it in the Debian team on Salsa, and upload the > > change with a delayed upload to allow objections. [..] > > Why is the orphaning process not completed on these packages?
There is no incomplete orphaning process, the package was not supposed to be orphaned. This bug (#879296) is a "remove from Uploaders"-type bug, it has been filed as a result of an MIA process in 2017. It only affects only one of the two uploaders recorded in d/control, so orphaning the package was not warranted when I filed this bug. -- tobi (as MIA Team member)
