Scripsit Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:42:47 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
>>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.
It is already the case that "flatly refusing to give away the package
or even allow co-maintenance" *should* not happen at all and, if it
does happen, *should* not prevent the package from eventually being
given to somebody who is willing to keep it properly maintained.
I agree that our mechanism for turning those "should"s into "do"s are
not, empirically, always working well. But simply adding by fiat
another requirement for the maintainer to flatly refuse to follow is
not likely to help solving the underlying problem.
--
Henning Makholm "Hør, hvad er det egentlig
der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?"
