On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:36:26PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > in the past, I followed those rules for an obviously unmanitained > package, and all it resulted in was that a DD ignored my NMU patch and > uploaded his own NMU which contained all the fixes I refrained to > include... (and I think he made the good choice).
I'm unsure where the relation to the current case is. > Since the maintainer is not a DD and is apparently inactive for one No? The maintainer of gpredict appearently is active (he answered in this thread..) and a DD. > year, I would recommend Cyril to ask on -devel, and -qa if he can orphan > the package, and then propose comprehensive NMU. But also if he wasn't a DD there is no reason to ignore the processes meant to be used. Before assuming that someone is appearently inactive someone should at least try to *contact* the maintainer, regardless of weither the maintainer is a DD or not. I'm missing that step in your list. BTW. in Cyrils case I don't see how it makes sense to orphan and adopt the package? He did an NMU and the maintainer complained that it was to intrusive and so Cyril asked what policy he should follow. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
