On Tue, 7 May 1996, Steffen Mueller wrote: > > Maybe there should be an 'unsupported' directory for packages which > > have been released but don't have an active maintainer...or is this > > what 'contrib' is for? Also, allow any package in 'unsupported' can be > > adopted by anyone who takes the time to actively maintain it. > > That's okay so far but it doesn't guarantee bug maintainance. Assume all > those folks going to install some of these packages and run into > trouble....
Yep, that's why any 'unsupported' directory would have to be clearly marked Something like: **** WARNING ********* WARNING ********* WARNING ********** WARNING **** * * * These packages are unsupported. That means: * * * * USE AT YOUR OWN RISK (like the rest of Debian but even more so) * * NO SUPPORT AVAILABLE. * * YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN WITH THESE PACKAGES. * * BUG REPORTS WILL PROBABLY BE IGNORED. * * * * These packages have no active maintainer. They may be old * * versions. They may not work. They may do weird things. * * * * They may work perfectly. * * * ************************** Volunteers Welcome ************************** * * * If you care about a package in here, 'adopt' it and become * * the official Debian maintainer. Read the Debian Developer's * * Guidlines to find out what this entails. * * * **** WARNING ********* WARNING ********* WARNING ********** WARNING **** ought to do it :-) > Generally packaging "unsupportet" files would be okay as long as those > packages are marked UNSUPPORTET or orpahned. If someone adopts it it can > make its way into one of the common directories with a small comment > "adopted 96xxxx by John Doe" + "Maintainer : " Yep. That's what I meant. If the 'Maintainer:' field in debian.control was 'UNSUPPORTED', then the bug tracking system could then be modified to send a form letter back for any bug report on an unsupported package saying "you might get some help from other users but don't count on it" Craig
