Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Julio Merino wrote:
> 
> 
>>I want to add a thought: If you have set the MAINTAINER to packages@netbsd.org,
>>it seems that you don't want to care about the package.  So... why have you
>>provided it in the first term?
> 
> 
> In some cases, there is a current need, but maybe the submitter isn't
> interested in maintaining for the future.
> 
> Maybe they hope that others will choose to maintain it.
> 

Moreover, the packages@netbsd.org may means "free to take maintainership".
In other case users will be think that package is maintained by
somebody@else.com when it is not really so. For example, someone is
provide package as maintained by packages@netbsd.org, and then
somebodyother(at)netbsd(dot)org easy can becomes a main developer.

Next, maintaining the package in NetBSD's pkgsrc repository isn't possible
for not NetBSD commiters. So what a big sense to take maintainership, if you
cannot realy maintain that package?

> 
>>Adding new packages just "to have more" is, IMO, bad, because most of them
>>won't have maintainers and will easily become obsolete, buggy or whatever.
> 

That's true in case "just to have more". But sometimes, you can faced with
some software, which is not easy to install or something other. You think
this software will be useful for you and you use it in learn way few days
or even month. After that, you find more advantageous (for you) alternative
and switch to it, but this is not means the alternative is better in all
places than that first. Your expirience with installing and tuning first
program already mirrored in appropriate package, but you won't maintain
it in future. Why in this case don't set MAINTAINER to packages@netbsd.org?

--
Best regards,
Mishka.