ITA for an abandoned package: evolver case

[Tobias Frost]

Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2016, 11:59 +0100 schrieb Jerome BENOIT:
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> On 08/06/16 10:40, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > May I fill an ITA or something to signify that someone to working
> > 
> > > the [surface] evolver package ?
> > 
> > A bug with patches should be enough, ITA means somebody orphaning
> > the package
> > and only the maintainer/MIA team can do it.
> > 
> > But a bug with patches and you proposing the maintainership is
> > something
> > that might be appreciated by the community
> 
> Right now the package rocks.
> But the upstream version is (very) old, and the Debian package
> material
> clearly needs some refreshment. Is a patch really appropriate here ?
> May I rather wait for  clear orphaning instead ?

You can still NMU it, even new upstream versions; but you'll need some
justification here, especially as the current version is mostly
bugfree, according to the BTS. (but #745500 might be a candidate for a
RC severity -- at least when reading the tex; didn'T check) 

So I'd first file bug saying "Please package new upstream Version
x.yy". You can offer to help there, provide a patches/repositories ...
If there is no response within some time (weeks), NMU it.

I'd also file a bug "Is this package still maintained?,
(along the spirit of the "should we RM xyz" bugs like (random, googled
one) 796118, not RM but O/ITA as target.) Give the maintainer a few
weeks to respond, if there is no response, reassign it with "O:" or
"ITA:"

--
tobi

> Jerome
> 
> > 
> > G.
> > 
>