Am Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 05:01:03PM +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > > My reading of the current thread is that several people agree that > clucene-core appears to lack active maintenance, while there is less > agreement about the appropriate process to handle such packages. Since > the package does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow, perhaps we > should discuss what criteria and procedure would be appropriate for > formal orphaning in such cases.
One thing I'd like to understand better is the statement that clucene-core "does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow". The remaining maintainer has not been through an MIA process, and the MIA team has not been asked to investigate this case. Could you elaborate on why you think the existing MIA procedures are not suitable here? -- Cheers, tobi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
