On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:44:34PM +0100, наб wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:29:26PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:18:39PM +0100, наб wrote: > > > Quoting the relevant: > > > > It is recommended to choose between one of the two following schemes: > > > > 2. Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. > > > > In the Uploaders field, put the team members who care for the > > > > package. > > > > > > In the packages salvaged into the salvage team we have a choice between: > > [..] > > > 3. Maintainer: salvage team > > > > > [..] > > > 3 is a better fit for what I term dead-end packages > > > (ones that truly no-one cares about, with no upstream, > > > or no maintainer, or no utility, or otherwise 0 forward motion; > > > and with little potential to generate bugs except 1 FTBFS/decade). > > > This is most of the salvage team packages. > > > > Why are what you call "dead-end packages" "salvaged" at all? I seem > > to recall that the salvaging process is for packages you actually > > want to maintain. > Because a more aggressive RM RoQA policy got me yelled at last time > for making work for the ftpmasters, so I stopped arguing for RMs > and do Andreas' preferred methodology of salvaging everything.
> Doing this allows packages that tend to be in a functionally-orphaned > state to be team-maintained in the long term. This satisfies the salvage > criteria as I see them and I have an equal interest in every weird > ancient FTBFS these packages generate. If you are still interested in them, then properly document this and add yourself to Uploaders: Not doing this seems like a clear abuse of the ITS process to me. Otherwise if you just want to "create facts", do an O: upload and set Maintainer: Debian QA Group. Chris
