Hi Sebastiaan, On Sunday, 26 August 2018 10:29:43 AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 8/26/18 10:17 AM, Stuart Prescott wrote: > >>>> No one in the Debian GIS team is willing to maintain this EOL package > >>>> any longer, qmapshack is were we invest our effort. > >>> > >>> Please file a WNPP bug that orphans qlandkarte. That signals to others > >>> that > >>> they can (and should) take over maintenance of the package. > >>> > >>> ยง5.9.4 of the Developers Reference covers the case where the existing > >>> maintainers are unwilling to maintain a package any longer: > >>> > >>> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#orp > >>> ha > >>> ning > >> > >> No, EOL software should be removed. The QA team is not the place for EOL > >> and broken packages. > >> > >> The removal of qlandkartegt was a long time coming, since it's been > >> superseded by qmapshack in Debian and upstream, this issue was just the > >> trigger. > > > > If you really believe that, the correct course of action is an RM bug. > > wontfix on an RC bug still isn't right. > > If you really cared, you would have checked and seen that one already > exists.
My apologies, I had actually checked, but missed it. > > More generally, though, there is plenty of software that is Debian without > > an active upstream but with active maintainers keeping it alive. Dead > > upstream's aren't a problem for Debian; it's dead upstreams coupled with > > inactive maintainers. It's fine for you to decide that you don't want to > > be that maintainer, but it's not your call to stand in the way of others > > who do want to do this work. > > I am the only active maintainer of this package, it *is* my call to tell > others that I will not fix this issue because the software is EOL. Except that is absolutely not what I said. You get to make calls about your time, that's fine. You don't get to say that other maintainers aren't allowed to maintain this package but that is what you're doing. > People that want to fix this package know what to do, get involved in > upstream development and take over maintenance of the package. > > I care more about the quality of Debian than to keep broken packages > that have no future in Debian. > > So far no one has stepped up to revive QLandkarteGT upstream > development, it just a lot of empty talk and no action. My point is that no-one knows that it needs action because there is no RFH, RFA or O bug. > Stop talking out of your ass, and get off it to revive upstream > development if you really care about the future of this package. *sigh* That's completely out of line. You can't complain that others aren't doing work when they don't know that the work is required and where you are actively blocking that work. * Today was the first I knew that you weren't planning to continue to maintain it. I follow O/RFA/RFH bugs in packages I use for *precisely* this sort of situation where help is needed. There is no bug filed and my mind-reading kit was yet to pick up your request for assistance. * The lack of O/RFA bug means that to do anything here, I must first hijack the package. That's not how we normally do things. Your course of action means that even though I *am* considering taking this package on, I am required to act in a way that is not normally acceptable in Debian. You're also asking me to suddenly take on this code base with a whole 2 hours notice. Please don't be surprised that I've not yet agreed to do so or that generating so much stop energy discourages people from doing so. Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
