On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote: > Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [Please CC me.] > > > I apologize for not seeing that, there were no objections directly sent > > to the ITP bug, and when I checked the debian-devel archives at the time > > there were no objections either. I did not want to NMU or adopt the > > existing gdm package, as the maintainer still seemed to be active, just > > somewhat ignoring the new gdm releases. I'll go ahead and file an ITA > > An ITA mean Intent To Adopt, and no the current gdm maintainer doesn't > maintain this package. The current maintainer is may be active for > its others Debian jobs (ftpadmin, mipsel buildd) but not for this > package.
To adopt a package the current maintainer must ask for it to be adopted. Package takeover attempts usually require consensus on debian-devel with the maintatiner MIA. Ryan is however not MIA. He *is* actively maintaining gdm, however he has made a concious decision not to upload a gdm 2.4 package to unstable. It would be irresponsible and questionable for you to hijack the package in this way. If you insist on installing a temporary gdm package, the correct name should be gdm2.4 as this correctly represents the version and is less ambiguous. Hoever i expect the package would not be installed into the archive by the ftpmasters. Cheers, Rob -- Rob 'robster' Bradford Founder: http://www.debianplanet.org/ Developer: http://www.debian.org/ Monkey with keyboard: http://www.robster.org.uk/
