> On 8 Jun 2020, at 00:22, Philip Webb <purs...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> 200607 Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I think this is the list of completely unmaintained packages now,
>> indeed most of them, around 100.
>
> -- extract from list --
>
>> media-gfx/imagemagick : 200516
>> media-libs/giflib : 200312
>> media-libs/libjpeg-turbo : 200328
>> media-libs/openjpeg : 200328
>> virtual/jpeg : 200606
>
> There have been upgrades of all these in recent months :
> dates when I upgraded on my desktop system are added (the last yesterday).
Basically all of these get done by us in security@ because they tend to have
vulnerabilities and they are core packages.
> Surely, that means someone is maintaining them.
> Perhaps the culprits could own up (smile).
Maybe. If nobody else does, I will, but it’s easier if someone with +w does for
now.
>
> As a long-time user, I find it disturbing
> that a huge list of packages should suddenly be declared unmaintained,
> esp as some of them -- eg above -- are likely needed by most users.
They’re declared to not have a named maintainer — I promise you, they are not
going anywhere,
even though this appears concerning. With graphics@, it was an “open secret”
that they were
unmaintained, now it’s clear that anyone is welcome to help.
I hope this helps reassure you a bit — the gist is, they’re not going anywhere,
and
nobody would let these packages leave the tree.
This is essentially just making the formalities reflect reality — to be clear
we’re welcome
to touch these packages and help.
>
> --
> ========================,,============================================
> SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
> ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
> TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatcadotinterdotnet
>
>
