[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#851747: sysvinit-utils: unmaintained package should not be Essential

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#851747: sysvinit-utils: unmaintained package should not be Essential"):
> Simon McVittie writes ("Bug#851747: sysvinit-utils: unmaintained package should not be Essential"):
> > sysvinit appears to be unmaintained, but it builds an Essential package
> > (sysvinit-utils) that must be installed on all Debian systems. This
> > seems like a bad situation.
> 
> I'm happy to commit to maintaining these ...
> 
> > Contents of sysvinit-utils, ignoring documentation:
> > 
> > /lib/init/init-d-script
> > /lib/init/vars.sh
> > /sbin/fstab-decode
> > /bin/pidof == /sbin/killall5 (same program)
> 
> ... things.
> 
> I confess I don't understand everything in the sysvinit-related
> packages and also the use of a list as the Maintainer is confusing.
> 
> If it would help the bookkeeping I'm happy for my name to be added to
> Uploaders.

For the avoidance of doubt:

Looking at #811377 it does not seem to me that sysvinit is
unmaintained.  There is a transition in the team surrounding sysvinit,
certainly, but there are plenty of people there who have an interest,
including myself, and several upstream people.

I don't want to do an upload of this package just to change the
Uploaders - particularly at this stage of the release.

But, for the avoidance of any doubt, I hereby re-express my intent to
help adopt this package.  I would like the next upload to name me in
Uploaders.  I'm happy to share this role with the people who have
written to #811377.

This goes for startpar and insserv too.

I think therefore that #851747 should be closed.

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.