On 09/06/2010 10:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right > time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would > personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for > normal packages ("normal" backport maintainer = maintainer of the > package in unstable). > > Of course, that doesn't remove the possibility for people to upload NMU > backports when the maintainer is not responsive/interested in providing > a backport. But then the normal rules of NMUs should apply (in > particular, the NMUer must not change the Maintainer field, and should > monitor the bugs of the package).
+1 Cheers, Ludovico
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature