[xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#678127: should sgml-base be orphaned?

[Helmut Grohne]

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for speaking up here.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.06.2012, 13:50 +0200 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
> > The sgml-base package hasn't seen a maintainer upload for six years (put
> > into perspective: two stable releases) despite having a RC bug.
> 
> JFTR: That's not correct. It has seen its last upload in 2009. This
> should also answer, how I'm connected to this package.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sgml-base/news/20090712T153542Z.html

Ok, but this is an experimental upload. So my argument still applies to
stable, testing and unstable.

> IMO orphan a team-maintained package won't improve the situation. The

I tend to disagree here (but only a little). The qa team is known for
doing qa uploads and answering to bug reports. Orphaning the package
means giving the qa group explicit permission to do so.

> issue simply is, that the XML/SGML team lacks active maintainers. Except
> for libxslt/libxml AFAIK I'm the only person caring about the core
> packages and I've already filed several RFH requests.

This is an unfortunate situation. The problem I see here is that the
XML/SGML team is a point of contact that mostly acts like /dev/null.
Indeed the only two responses I got within a time frame of half a year
are from you (thanks!). Let me give a similar example, xml2rfc. It might
look unmaintained at first, but when approached, the maintainer actually
answers (#674911). If the XML/SGML group (or you) is able to comment on
proposed solutions, that is a huge step in the right direction and imo
clears the need to orphan sgml-base.

> If you don't mind, why don't you join and care about this package? I
> mean, this is what Debian is about - jump in, take a package and care
> about it. I'm almost a DD and I can sponsor the uploads. What do you
> think?

I am a bit reluctant to do this, because clearly I do not (actively) use
this package. Given that nobody else cares about this package and I by
now know a bit about its inner working, it actually makes sense. For now
I would like to concentrate on fixing the remaining #477751 related
issues like #676717.

> Thanks for your work on #477751 and regards, Daniel

Well I never asked you whether you wanted me work on fixing "your" (the
sgml team's) RC bugs. So it is good to hear that you appreciate it.

Given that most information on the XML/SGML team is outdated (or 404),
can you give me some pointers on who is currently active or what "join"
precisely means?

Helmut