Re: unmaintained packages hidden by team maintenance

Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:45:44 +0100

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

[dropping a pile of cc'ed addresses]

Quoting Simon Josefsson (2026-02-20 14:50:28)
> Dominik George <[email protected]> writes:
> > > this is the whole point of making the Uploader field optional.
> > > When absent, it means that every team member is equally in chage
> > > for the packag
> > What does this entail? Do I constantly have to monitor upstream? Do
> > I, personally, get all the maintainer duties? And everyone else in
> > the team as well?
> 
> No.  The package is a shared responsibility, which is my perception
> of the point of doing team-maintained package in the first place.  If
> you don't want shared responsibility, then why team-maintain
> something?

How can I assess, as a concerned Debian developer, whether everybody or
somebody or nobody in a team are responsible for the package?

If the answer is "ask the team" then why is the Uploaders field ever
relevant? I mean, the MIA team and anyone else concerned about a
package can always "just ask" - why should we need to declare ahead of
time what individuals take responsibility for, when we play loose with
teams?

> It is fine for people to have the single-maintainer model and still
> be able to do what they want.  Nobody has suggested to remove the
> Uploaders field.  Only to make it optional, for those who prefer
> another way.

What do you mean by "do what they want"? Isn't it those arguing for
making the Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages that
wants to "do what they want"? In what ways can maintainers of
single-maintainer packages "do what they want"?

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)