Yes, I believe an RFH would be more suitable in this scenario. P.S. I personally can consider co-maintaining, however I cannot really guarantee any particular level of availability for maintenance tasks at this point.
вт, 21 янв. 2025 г., 18:14 Antoine Le Gonidec <[email protected]>: > Le Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:53:48 +0400, > Ilyas Gasanov <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > In this case, can I ask you to create a Request For Adoption (RFA) on > > WNPP channel, so that other potential maintainers would be able to > > take note of this? > > Mono is already listed on https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption > > The main reason there is no RFA yet is that there are still many things > I want to fix in the current packaging (it accumulated many problems > over the years). > > Since I took over its maintenance I’ve been working on fixing them, my > current priority order being: > 1. Fix the problems reported on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mono > 2. Switch to the new upstream maintained by the WINE team > 3. Remove *unused* binary packages to reduce the maintenance scope > (anything with reverse dependencies or reverse build-dependencies is > going to stay) > > Of course, even without having submitted this package explicitly for > adoption, I would be more than happy to see other people joining the > maintenance of the mono source package. If they have objectives > different than mine it’s not a problem, on the contrary: each > co-maintainer could then focus on the parts they really care about. > > I think there is a wnpp report category more appropriate when asking > for co-maintainers… Maybe RFH? >
