On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking. > > With hijacking I mean disrespectful takeover. > > Either respect maintainership by only NMUing, or respectfully resolve > with the Debian community that the current maintainer is unfit for the > task.
Ok, I will NMU then. Thanks for voicing your opinion, which was exactly why I asked. > you use Debian freeze as argument for swift takeover. I find it not > respectful to rush processing like that! > Again, no! That wasn't my point. My point was that it was left unmaintained since the upload of 2008, which is 4 years ago. That's also 2 release ago if I'm not mistaking, which is why I talked about release names. That's a long time, IMO, and thought it could be a reason good enough to have the package go into the team. Also, I did *not* want to hijack the package, but that it becomes orphaned, because left unmaintained, and asked for opinions of others if this was the way to go. Now, seeing your arguments, I agree with it (especially the part where we should put maintainers in front of their duty). So I will only do an NMU on the delayed queue, and leave one month pass. Then if there's no reply, I'll ask for the package to be orphaned. By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the changes as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our toolsets have changed since the last upload (eg: we now have pkg-php-tools and dh 8 sequencer), that we do a bit more changes in the package than just the new upstream release? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fc6238a.4070...@debian.org
