> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:08:24PM +0200, Julian Wollrath wrote: > > nearly a month passed, since I asked for sponsorship for the new > > powertop package [0] and addressed the concerns which Paul Wise had > > with it. Sadly Patrick Winnertz, the maintainer, did not react and I > > When you claim the someone else is not responding, please include a > reference to your contact attempts. This makes it much easier to > verify your claim. No problem: He was CCed in this thread and did not react, a patch to update the package to version 2.2 was available since February (see bug 695892) but nothing happend and last year I offered him co-maintain but got no response (for a public email referring to the offer, see [0]).
> In this case I believe that you should "salvage"[1] the package (i.e. > become maintainer). The last maintainer upload has been made more than > two years ago and we keep maintaining it with NMUs. This is stupid. > > To me the basis for a salvage is clear. There has been no maintainer > upload in more than two years. Patrick does not currently have a key > in the keyring. What more is needed? > > Barring opposition from fellow developers, I suggest that you become > maintainer for the powertop package and prepare a maintainer upload > taking over the package. To make this less controversial, please > include a list of your previous contact attempts. I changed the package, so that I am maintainer now. Should I send an email to debian-devel and to Patrick Winnertz, asking, if there are objections or is it ok, to let the change happen 'silently'? > When publishing packages, *always* sign them. Even if I have no path > to your key, I could still establish some trust in the persistence of > your key usage. Did not thought of that, the new package is signed. > When you bump standards version, please tell what changes were needed > to make the package comply with the newer policy. Often enough this > can be "no changes needed", yet I find this informative. I added a 'no changes needed'. > In debian/control the powertop-dbg has a redundant Priority: extra. Removed it, thanks. > The csstoh patches appear noise. Why not merge them into one patch? Because I was lazy and upstream had it as to separate patches but I switched to the upstream git repo as source instead of the tarballs and am generating the tarball myself from the tag, so the patches are not needed anymore. > Also your patches suggest that you use some well known three-letter > version control for the Debian packaging. Can you publish that and add > Vcs- headers? Done, the packaging can be found under [1]. > The copyright file appears to be still referring to 2.0. There is no > pevent anymore, cause it uses traceevent now. > > I think the copyright file should be fixed before an upload to > unstable. If you don't fix this now, you'll get a reject via NEW. I updated the copyright file. A build of the updated package can be found under [2]. Thank you for your remarks, Julian [0] http://lists.debian.org/201206121658.45686.jwollr...@web.de [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/git/users/jw-guest/powertop.git [2] http://rbw.goe.net/jw/debian/pool/powertop -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130708212817.75b1c969@ilfaris
