Quoting Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > I, for sure, cannot hijack any package for which nothing has been done > > for translation related bugs. I would quickly end up with dozens of > > packages I'm responsible for, the majority of which I'm perfectly > > unable to maintain. > > If you can't maintain the package then you shouldn't be NMU'ing it. > It's real simple, learn that.
Wow....There's a strong difference between maintaining a package, which means following it along its entire life and making one single fix for a very specific thing. I'm perfectly able to do the changes required by the NMU i send, mostly po-debconf switches or translation incormoration. But, if a bug related to something completely different in the package occurs, then I cannot fix it be cause I'm not invloved in the given software. For what I read, it is not required to be able to maintain everything for a given package for being able to NMU it. It is just required to be able to fix possible introduced bugs.... > > But I cannot leave also. Nothing in these packages tells me that they > > are unused, or useless or whatever. As they're kept in the archive, I > > suppose they are either used, or to be used, by someone. This may of > > course be wrong for some of them, but I'm perfectly unable to > > determine this. > > Don't leave it alone, bitch to the maintainer, bring it up on d-d, etc. > I didn't say just leave it alone, I said don't NMU or hijack it unless > you can actually maintain it. I *CAN* maintain.....what I change. So my reading of our policy tells me that it's OK to NMU. > > I also hate to see valuable work such as the one made by translation > > teams (or some motivated individuals) dying slowly in the BTS like > > some russian translations I find regularly, which are so old that > > they're most often outdated....just because the damn maintainer was > > too lazy to try to figure out how to use them.... > > If they're more complex than a patch then obviously you could make it > simpler/easier by making it into a patch. Every DD should know how to > use a patch. They're not complex at all. Most of the time (for russian translations), it is just required to know how to uudecode file and how should a debconf translation be named... :-) > > I respect the usage in Debian and file my translation-related bugs as > > "wishlist"....but am not really satisfied with this. > > So work to actually get it changed. This is precisely what's currently happening.. :-)