On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Michael Gilbert writes: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure >>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more >>> about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in Debian where the >>> existing procedure for orphaning packages is perceived as too >>> heavy-weight and we believe that there are packages that aren't being >>> cared for, aren't orphaned, and that someone else would work on if the >>> status were clearer. > >> It is a proposed solution to the above issue, so it is intimately >> apropos to the discussion at hand in my opinion. > > Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't > think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules with a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained packages, so I personally can't see where it would break down. > It's > certainly fine for people to try it, though, and I don't think it requires > any changes to any procedures for people to do so. A procedure change is important because it empowers salvagers; giving them a clear set of steps to follow while also giving them the confidence that their actions are the approved/correct ones; just like the existing NMU rules. It also makes it clear who is in the right if the issue does blow up to the Tech Committee. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mmblomn8q9zs9p8foybyhawx35wp0mvydmqu2o67ze...@mail.gmail.com
