On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:42:47 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 04:20:32PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >> You're missing an important case here: the one where the maintainer isn't >> completely absent, but lacks the time to maintain the package in an >> optimal manner. > >Those are excellent reasons to give the package away and/or to start >looking for comaintainers.
In theory, you are right. In practice, we have more than a couple of packages in that state with the maintainer flatly refusing to give away the package or even allow co-maintenance. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
