* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Er. You're going to hold NMUers responsible for the general crappy > state of a package before they got to it? Are you also going to concede > to them the authority to request the package's removal from the archive > without the maintainer's consent, or is your position specifically > formulated to discourage QA work?
As I said earlier in this thread, unmaintained packages which have
problems should be orphaned to QA or removed unless someone is willing
to NMU or hijack. An NMU is a good thing to do when a maintainer is
unavailable for a time, if the maintainer has just disappeared then you
might as well just hijack it. I see it as irresponsible to NMU a
package for which you *know* the maintainer is MIA indefinitely. You
leave a package in Debian which you know no one is caring for, that's
irresponsible.
> Responsible NMUing means taking responsibility for *your changes* to the
> package and any bugs that may result from them. It does not mean being
> stuck with the responsibility for fixing all new bugs filed against the
> package, like the loser of a game of hot potato. That makes no more
> sense than to say "an NMUer is responsible for all open bugs on the
> package unless the maintainer uploads."
I disagree. We are all responsible for fixing all of the bugs, old and
new, for the entire distribution. Clearly we don't all have time to
look at every bug which is why we divide up the work between the
maintainers along package lines. If you're doing an NMU on a package
then you should consider yourself a self-appointed co-maintainer until
the official maintainer comes back. If you know the maintainer isn't
coming back any time soon then you're it. If that doesn't work for you
and no one else is interested in it then it should be orphaned to QA or
removed.
Stephen
pgpRFlpAwjCyG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
