On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 08:06:03AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
I think your reaction to this is a bit harsh. I see this ITN proposal as a way how to handle pacakges that are effectively unmaintained, but where one is not necessarily interested in becoming the maintainer.we have a procedure for this. orphan the package, do an QA upload.
Well we don't? We don't seem to have a procedure for orphaning a single random someone else's package without them agreeing? This discussion is going in circles over the past couple of years, because people invent and implement, or just propose, various ad-hoc procedures and then other people (often rightfully) say "this procedure is against the accepted policies and/or abuses them", "this procedure's goal is not what the project actually wants for this package" or "until this is officially in devref I won't comply".
I will even make a stronger claim: that there is no actual project consensus, or at least a consensus against the louder parties, on what the project should and shouldn't allow doing with effectively unmaintained packages.
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
