Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:59:33PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2007-02-22, Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> wrote:
> > On 22-Feb-07, 11:00 (CST), Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> wrote:
> >> > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> >> >
> >> > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking...
> >>
> >> Maybe the maintainer for making non-binNMU-safe packages ?
> >
> > That is so much bullshit.
>
> if the topic was something more 'gently' than 'serious thwacking', then
> yes.
I maintain that anyone that uploads a package that is uninstallable *at
the time of upload* needs something more than gentle encouragement. To
upload someone else's package and render it uninstallable is even more
annoying. To do that without ever even filing a bug, let alone posting
info to the BTS about it, is even more so.
I don't know what the difference between a regular NMU and a binNMU on
all archs is, in terms of packaging practices. (Obviously Arch: all
never gets built with the latter, which is the instant problem). I
still don't even know who did that, or why -- since it was apparently
built everywhere -- it wasn't done as a regular NMU.
Having said that, I would have sent a polite message in private to the
person that made the uploads. Only there is no record of that in the
package or the QA system.
I have repeatedly stated that I don't mind if people NMU my packages *as
long as they follow the guidelines*.
Here are some of the things from
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference that the person that
uploaded this package didn't follow:
* 5.10.2.1 (on binNMUs): "You have to make sure that your binary-only
NMU doesn't render the uninstallable. This could happen when a source
package generates arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that
depend on each other via $(Source-Version)." (Which is exactly what
happened here)
* The upload violated policy section 4.4, in that the maintainer name
and the email address of the *person* uploading the version do not
appear in the changelog.
Since this was a binNMU that effectively seems to have hit all archs, it
seems that the regular NMU requirements should apply, too (Devref sec
5.11.1):
* Make sure that the bug being fixed is in the BTS
* Wait for maintainer reaction
* Take responsibility for bugs you've introduced
(now *I* have to produce a new upload, and I don't even know if
I need to tighten some build-deps in control, because nobody told me
what the original problem was)
So yes, I'm ticked. Some unknown developer broke my package, violated
policy, never told me what the problem was, and isn't taking
responsibility to fix it.
If you break something, you fix it. Not make someone else spend time
figuring out what changed, why, by whom, and fix it.
-- John
Reply to: