Re: Patch for smail
- To: Debian-Alpha <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Patch for smail
- From: Paul Slootman <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:29:43 +0100
- Message-id: <19990201102943.A670@wau.mis.ah.nl>
- Mail-followup-to: Debian-Alpha <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <19990130145530.E12862@hazel.buici.com> from "Oscar Levi" on 1999/01/30 14:55 -0800
- References: <19990127083717.A8771@xs2.xs4all.nl> <19990127094900.C13273@wau.mis.ah.nl> <19990127010941.C31689@hazel.buici.com> <19990127110724.E13273@wau.mis.ah.nl> <19990130145530.E12862@hazel.buici.com>
On Sat 30 Jan 1999, Oscar Levi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:07:24AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > If you do a sourceful NMU, then anyone else who does another NMU
> > (irrespective of architecture) should use the currently available
> > source, i.e. the NMU source.
> > If the real maintainer does an upload ignoring the NMU patches (and the
> > problem is still there), then immediately jump in and do another NMU
> > with source. After a given time he'll get the point...
> Excuse my ignorance. How is that maintainer going to notice the
> second time if he doesn't notice the first time?
The first time was sourceless, the second time _with_ source (and
preferably also i386 binary). They'll notice the source and the binary
in i386 changing, while they'll usually not notice an upload with an NMU
version number to an arch they don't use.
home: email@example.com | work: firstname.lastname@example.org | debian: email@example.com
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands