On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 12:15:40PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
OK, you do not consider Debian Commons part of the solution, and I can understand the argument that Debian Commons should only be used when at least one person explicitly wants to take ongoing responsibility for the package.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.I do not understand why clucene-core "does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow", and I suspect that this is where others are also not following your logic.
I feel like the answer is "I don't want to wait some more years".
You seem to be saying that there should be a way to orphan a package without either involving the MIA team or getting the blessing of the maintainer, and my question is "Why?"
I think this framing is useful. And think the answer is: * In past several years the MIA team was reportedly nonexistent.* When someone sees a package that has been clearly unmaintained for years, a normal desire is to mark it as orphaned "now-ish" and not "in a year or several".
I think all of your "criteria" constitute unnecessary bureaucracy for a problem that already has enough bureaucracy.
It's replacing one kind of bureaucracy with another, simpler, one. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
