On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:59:04PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote: > Hmm, you do not honestly want to tell me that "Maintaining" is equal > to uploading a package with correctly set maintainer field.
No. What I'm saying is that no one cares enough about these packages to do that. > It is > caring about bugs, updates etc. I just fixed most of the zope-* > packages and it would be easy enough to set the maintainer field to > my email address. But I do not have the time to *care* about the > packages. If they're being well enough maintained by -qa, then they shouldn't get removed from either woody or sid. > > it makes the WNPP harder to manage, it makes update_excuses harder > > to follow... > This is a valid argument in my opinion - but no reason to remove > completely. No, the fact that they're not being maintained is the reason to remove them completely. > For beginners those packages are valuable. I tried to put in all > my knowledge about packaging Zope-Products into these packages, > introduced debconf (which all packages should do). I would be > very upset if a new maintainer started from scratch with one of > those packages without debconf. Then when someone comes around with an ITP, you can mail them your diffs and everyone can be happy. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
