Hi Chris
Am Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 02:40:51PM +0100 schrieb Chris Hofstaedtler:
> * Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> [250221 13:51]:
> > I've kept a couple of people in CC who spotted some misuse of the ITS
> > process in the case of vtgrab.
>
> Thank you.
You are welcome (as well as your previous comments were well perceived)
> > To avoid this in the case of dotconf I
> > intend to orphan dotconf which was now moved to the Debian/ team[4].
> > I'm aware that orphaning can be only done by the maintainer - but what
> > if
> >
> > 1. the maintainer has done the last upload more than 15 years ago
> > 2. does not respond to some email after 21 (when this ITS bug was opened)
> > 3. the package "survived" thanks to 3 NMUs and is de facto
> > QA maintained
>
> You are right that I personally would disagree that ITS is the
> correct procedure here.
Which is as I tried to express also my understanding and I (we in the
Salvage team) interpreted that process a bit to wide.
> I also see that we seem to have at least a stall on MIA processes
> (sorry if this is just my perception), and I think it would be
> beneficial to have a process which:
> a) moves a package to the Debian QA Group
Yes.
> b) does not impact the membership status of the previous maintainer
This was not the case in the process of Bug of the Day uploads. In
nearly all cases (I have no idea why this happened in the vtgrab case)
we left the previous Maintainer as Uploader. We did not intended to
hijack the package in any way. I mean, its questionable-and for sure
also not in the interest of the ITS idea-to leave someone who is
obviously not maintaining the package as Uploader. But removing the ID
at all would be against a "stronger rule" we all agreed upon.
> This process could also be applicable in cases where individual
> maintainers are active, but ignore a specific package.
Definitely!
> I don't know which criteria are useful and/or socially acceptable.
> Something similar to the ITS criteria for eligibility would seem
> okay to *me* personally.
Same for me. BTW, did you possibly read my suggestion from December
about "Barriers between packages and other people"[1]?
BTW, the three Bug of the Day criteria[2]
* No VCS or obviously outdated VCS (alioth, svn, cvs)
* Standards-Version < 4
* not uploaded last 5 years by the maintainer of the package
are pretty safe to find packages ignored by the maintainer to my
experience.
BTW, since the mail to Shane Wegner <sh...@debian.org> bounced I think I
can shorten the waiting period to upload the orphaned package if you
agree.
> Thanks for reaching out.
Thanks to you
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/12/msg00101.html
[2]
https://salsa.debian.org/tille/tiny_qa_tools/-/wikis/Tiny-QA-tasks#bug-of-the-day
--
https://fam-tille.de
