Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
On Friday 14 July 2006 03:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:22:25AM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> > >From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to
> > fix RC bugs? Not new upstream releases?
> > On 7/14/06, George Danchev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >Yet another attempt to find a sponsor for the shc package. Fixes several
> > >RC-bugs as described by Frank Lichtenheld in #335278 buglog. Changes
> > > read:
> > >
> > > shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
> This is the wrong version number for an NMU anyway.
True. Fixed as -0.1. Hm, it would be nice if lintian and linda warn if
changelog claims Non-maintainer upload and the debian-revision value is not
compliant with the conventions described in DevRef #5.11.2 (I know this
document is not normative, but these rules are not against the Policy). I'll
check their buglogs about such a wishlist otherwise will file a wishlist.
> > > * add myself to uploaders
> And this is totally inappropriate in an NMU. NMUs should always be limited
> to fixing bugs -- not making decisions that are exclusively the
> maintainer's to make, like accepting comaintainers...
Agreed. Fixed. There is no any chance for a comaintenance either, since the
maintainer has been MIA for almost 1 year now and these RC-bugs are left
unaddressed. Also seems he will not file a RFH, FRA, or O or ask for
comaintenance in a reasonable timeframe. What if I want to hijack the package
in favour of a better maintenance ? Well, I don't want to hijack for no good
reasons, but the above described ones should be enough doing so.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB