Re: unmaintained packages hidden by team maintenance

gregor herrmann <[email protected]> Sat, 7 Feb 2026 02:01:37 +0100

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

On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 22:58:22 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Fabian Grünbichler <[email protected]> writes:
>So if this is the de-facto situation for Python, Go and Rust team,

Also the Debian Perl Group.

>I
>wonder if we shouldn't make the 'Uploaders:' field optional to allow
>team Maintainer: fields without any particular Uploaders: fields.

Hahaha!

I guess I should explain why I'm bursting out in laughter: Yes of 
course we should, and I've argued this several times in the past, and 
it was always was shot down by vocal people who are not involved in 
any of this team maintenance stuff.

>It seems to me that the Uploaders: fields doesn't really reflect any
>relevant information, or at least none that is kept up to date.
>Is there any reason we couldn't make this change to policy?

I completely agree, and if you'r going to try and change this, I will 
(again) support this position.

Cheers,
gregor

-- 
  .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
  : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
  `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
    `-

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 963 B)