On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: >... > > It's either that or ask for an override, which means that when and if > > the package gets adopted you have to ask for a change again, which puts > > more work on the shoulders of ftp admins. I rather put more work on > > the shoulders of a machine. What is that? That I'm going to break > > packages by doing this? That they won't autobuild anymore? See > > closing comment on previous paragraph. > > Agreed that it's far from ideal (a mess). > > How about the following Best Practice then: > > For Orphaned WNPP packages; > After a period of 28 days they should have an upload made to set > the maintainer to Debian QA.
That means you want to put work on some people to get the bug reports to Debian QA where they belong to. I think it's the best when the old maintainer does an immediate upload with the maintainer set to Debian QA. >... > In ALL cases, discretion should be used. The goal is not to What do you mean with "discretion should be used"??? I always thought Debian was an open project and that "We Won't Hide Problems"? > systematically exterminate wnpp packages from the archive simply > because they're declared wnpp, but rather to have some reasonable > process of having wnpp packages slip away. > > Please comment on what you think would be better lengths of time. > I am not proposing an automatic removal system, I want to emphasize > this! > > But I do think that if we can all agree on guidelines for > handling WNPP packages we might be able to deal with them more > efficiently. ITA's for example, should expire. Lots of people don't > adopt things because "some other guy is doing it" when in fact he has > forgotten/abandoned it long ago. Please always remember your "I am not proposing an automatic removal system": The guidelines are only guidelines for people that look into a WNPP bug before they do an action. > - brian. cu Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
