Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not > maintained, or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned, > regardless how this is documented in the source package.
The concern that a couple of people had was that they felt it implied the package would be orphaned without any effort on the part of the current maintainer. We'd instead like to encourage the current maintainer to orphan the package rather than just letting it sit until someone does it for them. That's where the possibility of using should here was; that would make it clearer that it's the job of the maintainer to do the orphaning. "It is orphaned" is ambiguous as to what actor will take that step. Although, I suppose, if people follow the cross-reference, it is spelled out in the Developer's Reference. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
