Bernd Ernesti wrote:

> That maybe unnecessary e-mail in some eyes, but i others it may not
> because there maybe a reason why the maintainer didn't update the
> package.

I concur.
I try to follow the development of packages where I claim to maintain
them at least in a cursory fashion and although I do not have the case
at hand (and would not publish it in this forum) there was at least one
time where I did not update the package intentionally, only to detect
someone else did it.

> I'm against this way, it should be the other way around for the 'comment'.
> A maintainer has to explicit add a comment that they want become a 'weak'
> maintainer.
> A maintainer is a maintainer, if not then we don't need this field at all.

Fully agreed. If people do not want to "maintain" but "import" and "give
advice" about a package, then please choose a different variable name to
express this.

My aim is not to "own" packages so nobody else can play with them but
I do not want to spend my time working on packages to no end where a
simple e-mail can avoid that.

ciao
     Klaus