On 26/05/2008, Charles Plessy wrote: > It depends on how important are the VCS and package histories for the > maintainer and Debian. In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be > necessary to revert the current work, apply the NMU patch, merge the > reverted work and resolve the conflicts. It looks to me like the wording of the 3rd paragraph of 5.11.2 is a bit (too) strong: one must include the patch. It might be relaxed a bit so that the maintainer is still allowed to implement the changes the way s/he intends, rather than having to include the very patch sent to the BTS. > This is why the last time one of my package had a NMU, I just ignored > it instead of acknowledging it (the upload I made would have closed > the bug as well). In which case, I'd probably dosomething like ACK'ing the NMU, adding a “thanks to $nmuer, although the final implementation differs [details]”. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
pgpvvLsjao1g7.pgp
Description: PGP signature