Re: Accepted xplanet 1.0.1-2.1 (i386 source all)
References : <[🔎] 20030707174812.GI13727@deadbeast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
(veeery late reply, sorry. I've just been pointed to this mail as I
don't read -devel)
I was waiting such answer some day, I must admit.. :-)
> Was this NMU done with maintainer approval?
Well, no. It has been done after several attempts to ask for
maintainer approval.
> If so, please note this fact in your changelog entries in the future.
I will do so, though I may object that, as far as I have read, nothing
else than "NMU" or "Non-maintainer upload" is recommended. But I may
have missed somehting somewhere and, anyway, I think it's a good idea
to mention that, yes, the NMU has been made without being blessed by
the maintainer.
> If not, are these really the sorts of issues that demand an NMU?
Well, this is a matter of perception. Yes, translation bugs are
"wishlist"-type bugs, so a NMU may sound overkill for such "minor"
changes.
On the other hand, these translation-related changes are completely
trivial changes and I'm always surprised when I do not get any answer
(even "OK, thanks, I'll work on it as soon as I have some free time")
when reporting such bugs.
Very often, I (or other people working on i18n of debconf templates)
propose changes to original templates, often for common mistakes. As
long as the maintainer does not fix the templates, the translation
work is more or less stopped.
This is mostly why I put some insistance (ahem, bad english, I guess)
for having these bugs closed, or at least acknowledged, by
maintainers.
And sometimes, as the last hope, I propose a NMU. Always as kindly as
possible. This is always first a proposal.....then (a few days after)
a second proposal. Then a final proposal.
Then a NMU, in delayed/7-day.
So, as you may see, I try to be as careful as possible for *avoiding*
NMUs for stuff which is considered "minor" (but is it that minor ?
Having a 100% french-translated Debian is definitely *not* a minor
goal for me and probably lot of other people....also having a
distribution which speaks correct english is another important
goal....this is currently not the case of Debian, I'm afraid.. :-))
> (On the other hand, the maintainer hadn't done a release since April
> 25th, so the package was just beginning to get a little musty.)
I think this is the most important thing here. Is a very careful and
non invasive NMU more a problem than a too much busy and non responsive
maintainer ? :-)
As a conclusion : don't worry, Branden, I won't NMU XFree packages for
just updating the fr.po file (it doesn't need updating anyway.. :-))
--
Reply to: