On 02/03/2012 03:10 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
[email protected] which I think should be the first step in
searching for a new maintainer.
if there is no<herd> and no<maintainer>, then
"[email protected]" is implicit. why do we need to explicitly
list it ? -mike
If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was
that the packages still had other maintainers listed.
In hylafax's case, the package has been broken since the addition of
tiff-4.0.0_beta5, which got added to tree "12 May 2010"
Both tiff and hylafax are with nerdboy as maintainer. At this point I've
looked at the commitrate of said maintainer
With version bump request open from year ago
Now that tiff-4 is going stable, the breakage enters stable tree.
In the lastrite mail, I've sent the mail also directly to the
maintainer, CCing him. I've never got any reply, and the bugs don't have
any comment from the marked maintainer
Personally I hope someone who can also test the runtime, would commit
hylafax+ instead of fixing hylafax to tree (bug 168890). Or both.
So it was really 2+2=4 which lead to this, all the things combined,
case-by-case review, and I'm not sure the situation can even be
reflected by the metadata.xml.
Except the maintainer could have removed himself from it, when he
realized he doesn't have enough time or intrest for it
Overall I think the lastrites had the desired effect of causing enough
buzz around it for other people to notice/get intrest to it
