On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Neil Williams wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:48:16 -0700 > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Considering some of the question marks that have come up regarding > > sponsored packages, I thought I'd create a little checklist based on > > some of the things that I've seen go wrong. > > > > I thought I'd bounce it through you all before I sent it on to -devel. > > > > http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist > > Thanks, Don - that is very useful. > > > Determine if the package actually belongs in Debian > > > > * Is upstream active (alive)? > > Maybe it's just me (so I haven't put this into the Wiki yet) but I > don't see a dead upstream as a blocker. I'd like to see that point > qualified with regard to later sections on whether the proposed > maintainer is judged capable of handling a package with a dead > upstream. Yes, a dead upstream adds difficulties to package > management but I have packages with a dead upstream including one > where I have taken over upstream maintenance 8 years after the > original upstream left it for dead. I have sponsored packages with a > similar history. I have also looked at doing the same with certain > packages with a dead upstream and left well alone. The state of the > code is a better indicator than just the activity of upstream, IMHO.
Right; there are definetly cases where dead (or indeterminate-alivedness) upstreams can still have packages which would be useful for Debian and can be viably maintained. I think it's really a case where the sponsor should be aware that the upstream is dead and should make a decision whether they still want to sponsor. Maybe: * Is upstream active (alive)? If not, is the maintainer capable of handling upstream problems? Are you? Don Armstrong -- Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster. -- Anthony Towns http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
