Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> (13/09/2007): > > The package was breaking FHS, > > Details? Is the breakage RC? Two docs files outside /usr/share/doc. He probably couldn't read “should” in Policy 12.3. > Number? #442029 Please note that I didn't reach the retitle[1] when I answered. 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=12;bug=442029 My questions about the exact content of the bug remains, because “FHS violations” isn't self-explanatory. > Numbers? #442034, #442056 > > Rather than mucking with patches or explaining the issues > > ? Pardon ? The bug reports have to explain the issue behind the report > and for an NMU the bug reports must also include patches. What are the > bug report numbers? At least #442029 doesn't explain anything. I didn't look at the other reports yet, though. BTW, if you have patches, post them, and mark them as such so as to ease RC bug handling. Thanks. > > I figured the easiest thing to do > > Easy is not the objective. The Right Thing to do is to contact the maintainers first. And it is not like the Games Team were totally unresponsive, especially when it comes to handling copyright-related problems (see Miriam's — in particular but not only — incredible work bugging upstreams to clarify their license / consider relicensing). > > is to do a non-DD NMU and let the Games Team sponsor it if they > > want... it seemed silly to duplicate the work. What about letting the team some time to react and fix its package? > There is no duplication involved in an NMU - but you must engage with > the maintainer, explain your proposals, detail your patches and allow > time for the maintainer to either do the upload themselves. From your > request, I have no way to tell if you have done any of those essential > things.A Agreed, thanks for summarizing my thoughts. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgpM67GDmTx3k.pgp
Description: PGP signature