Re: RFC: Merge Request documenting a contributor-initiated orphaning process in the Developers Reference

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Thu, 02 Jul 2026 10:24:40 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Andreas Tille <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Following the recent discussion about packages that appear to lack
> active maintenance, I have prepared a Merge Request against the
> Developers Reference that attempts to document a possible
> contributor-initiated orphaning workflow.
>
> The proposal is intended as an optional workflow for contributors who
> encounter packages that appear to lack active maintenance but who do not
> wish to become the package's long-term maintainer themselves.

I've encountered this scenario a couple of times and wished there were a
process like the one above, so I support this.  I made some cosmetic
comments in the MR that have been addressed.

I think this should go into the Debian Policy manual, extending and/or
replacing section 3.3.  I think Package Salvaging and Debian Commons
could be mentioned there too.  I support adding it to the
debian-reference first.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#the-maintainer-of-a-package

I would have wanted to use that process when making the 'xe' upload:

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/xe
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1112675

The 'time' package is another good example, it has been in collective
maintainer status for 10+ years:

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/time
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1134001

I recall many more examples, but these were the one I could remember the
names of.

/Simon


> It complements the existing orphaning and salvaging procedures by
> providing a documented workflow for contributors willing to investigate
> a package's maintenance status and prepare the necessary QA action.
>
> Compared to the original discussion, I have tried to incorporate the
> feedback received on debian-devel by:
>
>  * making the workflow package-centric rather than maintainer-centric
>  * treating the listed criteria as non-exhaustive indicators rather than
>    mandatory requirements
>  * making the opportunities for the Maintainer and Uploaders to object
>    explicit
>
> I would appreciate review of both the proposed workflow and whether the
> Developers Reference is the appropriate place to document it.
>
> The Merge Request is available here:
>
>   https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/-/merge_requests/85
>
> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Kind regards
>    Andreas.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)