On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 09:04 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> [121031 08:06]: > > > Consider the case where a maintainer objects. In that case you're > > > counting in the previous "long waiting" time a period which the > > > orphaner probably thinks shows disinterest in the package, but during > > > which the maintainer may well feel (for part of the time at least) > > > that the package simply didn't need any attention. > > > > I keep on thinking that we are talking about different packages. If a > > maintainer is "simply feels that the packages didn't need any attention" > > these are not packages which are for instance: > > > > - lagging *way* behind upstream (regarding time or version number) > > There were some cases in the past where the maintainer did not package > new upstream version because they had some serious issues (or because > they only wanted to follow stable releases in cases where stable and > preview releases were hard to distinguish for a outsider) while someone > else mistook this for a missing action.
How to solve the following problem: Assume a package with wishlist bugs filed lagging behind upstream and the maintainer refuses to package any newer upstream, not even into experimental. And in general there is an interest (from several people) in having the new upstream versions packaged. Can this package become salvaged in some way by the ITS/ITO procedure? I think this is a rather common case, a cautious maintainer and some more adventurous salvagers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1351672360.363.10.ca...@hp.my.own.domain
