> #459868 Definition of Maintainer: when using a mailing list
> Need to resolve whether it's appropriate to say that an unmaintained
> package "should" be orphaned.
Hello everybody,
In my impression, the Policy is about how packages should be, and the Developers
Reference is about what packagers should do.
I liked the original wording, that implied that if a package is not maintained,
or if its maintainer has given up, then it is orphaned, regardless how this is
documented in the source package.
Then, it is appropriate for the Policy to specifiy that an orphaned package
should have the QA team as a maintainer.
Packages that do not conform to this requirement without a good reason are
buggy, and I think that the Developers reference is the best place to document
how and when to correct this bug.
So I would rather see a paragraph like the following:
<p>
If the maintainer of a package no longer has time or desire to
maintain a package, it is orphaned. The maintainer of orphaned
packages should be <tt>Debian QA Group
<packa...@qa.debian.org></tt>.
These packages are considered maintained by the Debian project as a
whole until someone else volunteers to take over maintenance.
<footnote>
The detailed procedure for doing this gracefully can be found
in the Debian Developer's Reference, see <ref id="related">.
</footnote>
</p>
</sect>
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
