On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > Quoting Martin Quinson (martin.quinson@tuxfamily.org):
> > > > > binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
> > > > Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source code of
> > > > the package neither.
> > > Hummm. Technically speaking, it does..?:-). With the source code of
> > > the package....not with the upstream source code.
> > New uploads will often trigger dormant bugs due to changes in the
> > toolchain, too. If a package hasn't been uploaded since gcc-2.95 was
> > current, a new upload built with gcc-3.3 will often not work even if the
> > only source changes were some grammar corrections in a README file, eg.
> >
> > It's the NMUer's responsibility to fix these bugs too.
> Err, FTBFS are RC bugs, most probably not of the responsability of the
> NMUer.
No. They're most probably not through any *fault* of the NMUer. Nevertheless
they are *still* the *responsibility* of the NMUer.
> What would you say if instead of doing the NMU, the potential uploader
> would will a FTBFS RC bug, and then make an NMU which fixes the
> translation problem. Would it then still be his responsability to fix
> the FTBFS bug ?
I don't understand what you're saying. "would will a FTBFS RC bug" ?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpVgJc8QrZF2.pgp
Description: PGP signature