Niv Altivanik (xaiki) wrote, On 01/26/2005 05:53 PM:
Sorry, i miss-expressed myself, I meant that I don't feel like maintaining the package under my name but, propose to maintain it for this maintainer when other debian developers have approved the package quality.
Sorry, I still don't understand. If you maintain the package then *you* are the maintainer. What would the other person do? Unless you are speaking of co-maintaining the package. But has this person shown any interest in packaging glurp?
Packages that are related don't need to be maintained by the same person. Glurp and mpd are different programs, have different source package and different bugs. Also glurp is not the only client for mpd. Perl modules are closely related with perl, apache modules with apache, etc, but they don't all have the same maintainer or maintainer team.
If you wish to maintain glurp I think you should go ahead and maintain it. The "Developer Reference"[1] has a section on the PTS that you will find useful.
I fully understand what maintaining a package costs in time and work, I'm sorry if my words seemed unrespectful. I also have
I don't think your words were disrespectful. I was just mentioning my personal opinion based on my (limited) experience as a package maintainer.
forgotten to say that i have contacted glurp upstream author and that he is very positive on having glurp entering debian.
The software looks interesting. If you are willing to maintain it I'll get a closer look and, if you want, sponsor the upload.
K.
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/index.en.html
-- .''`. | Lucas Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : Debian GNU/Linux | Buenos Aires, Argentina `. `' http://www.debian.org | http://www.kadath.com.ar `- | PGP: 1024D/84FB46D6 http://people.debian.org/~lwall | 5D25 528A 83AB 489B 356A mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 4087 BC9B 4733 84FB 46D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature