| Steve Langasek 2006-01-13, 10:44 pm |
| On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:00:50PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> IMHO it isn't at all.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In addition to the list of Anthony I might add:
> Require kind of a monthly status report of the maintainer. There must bea
> reason if an RC bug is open longer than a month. The maintainer should
> give reasons like "Need help", "Discussing with upstream", ...
> If the RC bug is two month old: "Sorry, got no help", "Upstream is
> ignorant",
> ...
> If a maintainer would not manage to respond to an RC bug for three months
> the package is obviousely not maintained and should be taken over by
> somebody else, IMHO.
I think the problem with saying "it should be taken over by somebody else",
is this:
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgr...ev-inc=critical>
35 open RC bugs on orphaned packages at severity: serious or higher, some of
them months or even years old. 14 of them are on packages with versions in
testing (these would be the ones with the newer RC bugs), the rest are on
packages that are not candidates for release in etch.
If RC bugs go unanswered for 3 months, I agree that something should be
done; I just don't think that saying someone else should take it over is
necessarily enough. I believe we need clearer methods for handling packages
in the case that *no one* is handling them, nor will do so.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
|