Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
- To: Jari Aalto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Ana Guerrero <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
- From: Alexander Wirt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 15:25:11 +0200
- Message-id: <20100523132511.GE16932@lisa.snow-crash.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Jari Aalto <email@example.com>, Ana Guerrero <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20100522130720.GA1982@ana.debian.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jari Aalto schrieb am Sunday, den 23. May 2010:
> In addition to fixing the RC bugs, minor updates were usually done at
> the same time. This was done for the reasons that in case the packages
> were later orphaned or the maintainer were MIA, it would be more
> desireable to have a well shaped package in archive. The minor changes
> - update to latest debhelper (In many times no debian/rules changes;
> possibly update deprecated dh_clean to dh_prep")
> - use packaging format 3.0 (delete quilt if it was used)
> - update compat to 7
I don't find anything of them acceptable for an nmu.
> The DEP1 does't specifially encourage fixing anything else than the BUG
> at hand, and that's a very good rule for actively maintained packages.
That dep thingys are no policy. imho these uploads violate the nmu policy.