On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 06:05:36PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 03:10:49PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 02:30:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I'd like to propose some procedure for packages that appear to lack > > > active maintenance, but where no formal orphaning has taken place. Lets > > > have a look for instance at clucene-core: > > > > > > 1. High popcon[1] > > > 2. Important rdepends like libreoffice-core > > > 3. Maintainer was contacted in #879296, but there has been no response > > > recorded there; the last upload was nearly ten years ago > > > 4. Uploader was asked about interest to become Maintainer four > > > years ago with no response[2] > > > 5. Open bug with patch to solve reproducibly problem #1059805 > > > requested by libreoffice maintainer with no progress since > > > nearly two years > > > 6. Package was NMUed three times in a row (one 64-bit time_t, > > > others to fix RC bugs) > > > > > > One possible solution to consider would be to move the package to Debian > > > Commons maintenance, host it in the Debian team on Salsa, and upload the > > > change with a delayed upload to allow objections. [..] > > > > Why is the orphaning process not completed on these packages? > > There is no incomplete orphaning process, the package was not supposed > to be orphaned.
Then I don't see why this discussion exists in the first place. Best, Chris
