Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously Guy Maor wrote: > > I'm not sure that is such a good idea. That's the way it was done > > initially. > > The fact remains that currently noone seems to reading > [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the moment: I have gotten complaints > that people mailed that multiple times (mostly to change the > maintainer of a package), so it is currently very hard to change > overrides.
Bah. The same people who read [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] read override-change. I don't think there's that much of a problem, and I see all the overrides we _do_ change that you _don't_ get complaints about. If we've missed some, then mail us again. Besides, override-change is *not* the way to change the maintainer address in most cases. It doesn't and can't change the email address everywhere (e.g. in the -I output of dpkg); the real way to change the maintainer address is to upload a new package. If you haven't got time to do that, why are you taking over the package? > Giving the package maintainers more control over the overrides for > their own packages seems a good strategy. Can you tell us why this > approach was abandoned earlier? How about because a certain developer would be free to NMU like it was going out of fashion to ``fix'' crushingly urgent priority bugs? -- James
