Re: Suggestion for orphaning process (Was: Maintaining potentially orphaned packages in Debian Commons team)
Tobias Frost <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 05:01:03PM +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > > My reading of the current thread is that several people agree that > clucene-core appears to lack active maintenance, while there is less > agreement about the appropriate process to handle such packages. Since > the package does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow, perhaps we > should discuss what criteria and procedure would be appropriate for > formal orphaning in such cases. One thing I'd like to understand better is the statement that clucene-core "does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow". The remaining maintainer has not been through an MIA process, and the MIA team has not been asked to investigate this case. Could you elaborate on why you think the existing MIA procedures are not suitable here? -- Cheers, tobi
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEE/d0M/zhkJ3YwohhskWT6HRe9XTYFAmom6YgACgkQkWT6HRe9 XTa8bBAAnn7vHpkSyE/bSUxtlhT44MfNhFWn6oMGM7FiKVb6FVEiqWtULYEwiSx/ s8r3QnimKwgg1qJ8uK5WDPzKUqvPkStepoUS71uhf9I2F/saXoWMWHmogPrtVpO8 DmzCMgUzx1nOWjrWr15h+oHF5T7P0XwfRRt6zG6yeQTQrfnXdnrO5YOtWyrIMfqW GX8cXl7IUT8x7XgndEz3S8pU5G5flYFWeiMatq0x3Yu7Ejp/LKvlk3D5HfzAP+c1 YbxOc4PUSbdSuU5XnToI3IV2yAyzMh8yBdXaV28W47o4zpn+MDjnDmoOE3PxiuLu tlAlwK2HDjt4sOkBoo/M5Z+fF2oMhIumflPY3Jsaln1np0lERJgf+ubuiSjURauz RsxHdRxn0LlaV8a+x1Z+7NvsW7gHnmAqjUn9vVKUYVXTpHfXjltA5514q9Ggivhw MqXhfJ5O6zEfMgcdsz28L0UBjd+PNqLD9pGkbtgE1QgYB+96KdSTxYmL7SZxkaMy rPuwMrZExxM8XQTLEGgguvM0F6etEXHe5fBua3EN/BfS+BmZZQUqpR9tfDxNkfD6 vD2TGtBreaeKlW+mUgiRHRM76CK71o+4GzUlaAleWQAdH9+zkXx4lAZNeKHSZxzf 6fdxJBga/dkDL5n7By9itA95aYRO463V4e78JF1y9sjHyefBWZc= =Iqez -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----