On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 02:30:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > I'd like to propose some procedure for packages that appear to lack > active maintenance, but where no formal orphaning has taken place. Lets > have a look for instance at clucene-core: > > 1. High popcon[1] > 2. Important rdepends like libreoffice-core > 3. Maintainer was contacted in #879296, but there has been no response > recorded there; the last upload was nearly ten years ago > 4. Uploader was asked about interest to become Maintainer four > years ago with no response[2] > 5. Open bug with patch to solve reproducibly problem #1059805 > requested by libreoffice maintainer with no progress since > nearly two years > 6. Package was NMUed three times in a row (one 64-bit time_t, > others to fix RC bugs) > > One possible solution to consider would be to move the package to Debian > Commons maintenance, host it in the Debian team on Salsa, and upload the > change with a delayed upload to allow objections. [..]
Why is the orphaning process not completed on these packages? That's the important question needing to be answered. Everything else might be indicative, and probably these packages are important - but why is the process that we have not working? Is this an attempt of a workaround for the orphaning? Best, Chris PS: I think the time_t-64bit NMUs should not be counted for this purpose.
