Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's exactly the point of this discussion. I would probably do the > same... so I thought that we could setup a friendly environment allowing > a group of people to maintain those packages with the help of external > contributors which are more interested in the package.
> And I found that the debian-perl group is working quite well maintaining > all their packages in a single subversion repository where all > developers in the group have write access. > So I proposed something similar. Sure, that sounds reasonable to me, and I'm happy to import any packages that I'm doing custodial duties on into such a repository when it exists. I would like to get some feedback on how to handle the maintainer field of such packages. As I noted in passing earlier, I think it does serve some useful purpose for someone to say "I'm the primary point of contact for problems" for a package even if they're not *really* maintaining it in the sense that one would think for a normal Debian package. Otherwise, why not just leave the package orphaned and use the QA list as the contact point? Accordingly, I was playing with the idea of adopting the package and then immediately filing an RFA bug on it (or maybe not closing the O bug and just retitling it?) so that there's a listed maintainer but it's still obvious that the package could use a maintainer who cares about that package specifically. Maybe this doesn't fit with how other people would want to work, though? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
