Hi Tobias, Am Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 06:11:00PM +0200 schrieb Tobias Frost: > 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".
This was my conclusion from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=879296#10 where you wrote that the remaining maintainer had not been through an MIA process and that the MIA team had not been asked to investigate the case. From that I inferred that the package was not progressing through the normal MIA workflow despite the concerns that had already been raised. > The remaining maintainer has not been through an MIA process, and the MIA team > has not been asked to investigate this case. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=879296#15 Given that there was no response to the 2022 inquiry, the package still appeared to lack active maintainer involvement several years later. This led me to conclude that the issue had not progressed through a process that would result in active maintenance of the package. > Could you elaborate on why you think the existing MIA procedures are not > suitable here? Because, regardless of how the MIA procedures are intended to work, the process followed in this case has not resulted in an actively maintained package. That is why I believe it is worth discussing whether additional procedures might be useful for situations like this. Kind regards Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
