On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 08:05:07PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I was not attacking the NMU faith or its usefulness, otherwise we'd > obviously not have NMUs; what I was getting at in this thread, that > got trimmed in the quoted mail, is the thought that the current NMU > procedure for native packages is bogus, as argumented previously. Oh, but I didn't mean to object to the fact that a specific procedure (the one used to NMU native packages) could be improved. I didn't quote that part simply because I didn't have anything to add/comment on that. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature