On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:17:13AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too > > many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively > > abandoned package. It also requires *more* skill than adopting the > > package would otherwise, since you have to be good enough at Debian > > packaging to make minimal chnages within some arbitrary packaging scheme. > > In other words, it requires as much or more skill than doing NMUs, whereas > > adopting a traditionally orphaned package is much easier. > > Very much agree. I am much more likely to work on a neglected package if > I can use the tools that I'm familiar with from my own packages. The > prospect of having to reverse engineer the packaging before I can make > any useful changes is very discouraging. > > I am *not* a DD, so I think I'm qualified to say that if the goal of the > proposal is to attract new contributors to help with existing packages, > being allowed to change the packaging style is crucial.
I strongly agree with what Russ Allbery and Nikolaus Rath wrote above. When a package is clearly not maintained, then it should be orphaned, so that a new contributor can become full package maintainer without any restrictions on the allowed changes. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026135454.gb17...@master.debian.org
