On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Bart Martens wrote: >> wine: http://bugs.debian.org/585409 (new upstream pushed via nmu) > > This is a good example where talking helped to gather all views on all aspects > from all involved people. My impression is that finally the maintainer > allowed > new co-maintainers doing things differently. That does not really match > Lucas' > proposal which is about marking packages as orphaned so that they can be taken > over by a new maintainer.
It matches my proposal where interested contributors apply nmus as needed to improve the situation, then eventually become uploaders. >> python2.6: http://bugs.debian.org/679030 (new upstream pushed via nmu) > > This does not seem to be an example of "the maintainer refuses to package any > newer upstream". This seems to be just an NMU, not related to Lucas' > proposal. As we were getting close to the freeze, python2.6 was in a poor situation where it was going to ship with 2.6.7 in wheezy, and thus lack a whole bunch of security updates. Julien Cristau made the decision that this would be unacceptable, and prepared a new upstream nmu resolving the inactivity. This is certainly a case of a maintainer acting in an unproductive manner. The previous 2.6.7 upload was made almost an entire year prior to that. 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=mnituoyqk9yw27smjyue7dd75mhg9fgrr+nz8t0jby...@mail.gmail.com
