Hi,
I believe this use of the ITS process is problematic. We’ve discussed
this before, so I know you are aware of the concerns [1]. In our last
exchange you indicated that you would follow the ITS procedure as
intended.
I agree.
[1] #1094788, with further discussion in private mail.
I’m bringing this to debian-devel for broader input - both to verify
whether my understanding is correct and to see whether others consider
using the ITS process in this way (effectively as a route to orphan
packages) appropriate.
Devref §5.12 clearly [0] states what salvaging is for, and its limited
scope. While it might be true we have *some* packages that are more or
less bitrotting, abusing this process to orphan packages or just pushing
QA fixes is not what is was designed for. Personally, I think the MIA
process should be improved; that is, if a package is effectively
"maintained" via NMUs, and no response is received from the original
maintainer, it could be orphaned easier (without the maintainers
consent). However just deciding to orphaning a package without prior
process while not being the maintainer feels like slight abuse of said
process to me.
I hope we can find a better solution for managing de-facto orphaned
packages; until then, let's stick to established procedures.
best,
werdahias
PS: not subscibed, so please CC me for replies
Links:
[0]:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging
