Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2016, 11:59 +0100 schrieb Jerome BENOIT: > Thanks for the reply. > > On 08/06/16 10:40, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > May I fill an ITA or something to signify that someone to working > > > > > the [surface] evolver package ? > > > > A bug with patches should be enough, ITA means somebody orphaning > > the package > > and only the maintainer/MIA team can do it. > > > > But a bug with patches and you proposing the maintainership is > > something > > that might be appreciated by the community > > Right now the package rocks. > But the upstream version is (very) old, and the Debian package > material > clearly needs some refreshment. Is a patch really appropriate here ? > May I rather wait for clear orphaning instead ?
You can still NMU it, even new upstream versions; but you'll need some justification here, especially as the current version is mostly bugfree, according to the BTS. (but #745500 might be a candidate for a RC severity -- at least when reading the tex; didn'T check) So I'd first file bug saying "Please package new upstream Version x.yy". You can offer to help there, provide a patches/repositories ... If there is no response within some time (weeks), NMU it. I'd also file a bug "Is this package still maintained?, (along the spirit of the "should we RM xyz" bugs like (random, googled one) 796118, not RM but O/ITA as target.) Give the maintainer a few weeks to respond, if there is no response, reassign it with "O:" or "ITA:" -- tobi > Jerome > > > > > G. > > >