On 02/03/2012 03:10 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>> wrote:
>>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
>>> of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
>>> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
>>> searching for a new maintainer.
>>
>> if there is no<herd>  and no<maintainer>, then
>> "maintainer-needed@g.o" is implicit.  why do we need to explicitly
>> list it ? -mike
>
> If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was
> that the packages still had other maintainers listed.

In hylafax's case, the package has been broken since the addition of 
tiff-4.0.0_beta5, which got added to tree "12 May 2010"

Both tiff and hylafax are with nerdboy as maintainer. At this point I've 
looked at the commitrate of said maintainer

With version bump request open from year ago

Now that tiff-4 is going stable, the breakage enters stable tree.

In the lastrite mail, I've sent the mail also directly to the 
maintainer, CCing him. I've never got any reply, and the bugs don't have 
any comment from the marked maintainer

Personally I hope someone who can also test the runtime, would commit 
hylafax+ instead of fixing hylafax to tree (bug 168890). Or both.

So it was really 2+2=4 which lead to this, all the things combined, 
case-by-case review, and I'm not sure the situation can even be 
reflected by the metadata.xml.
Except the maintainer could have removed himself from it, when he 
realized he doesn't have enough time or intrest for it

Overall I think the lastrites had the desired effect of causing enough 
buzz around it for other people to notice/get intrest to it