Re: Let's be friends. (Non-maintainer uploads made easier)
joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen) wrote on 25.10.97 in <[🔎] m0xP30Z-000CL6C@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl>:
> OK, I can say that now. But actually, for some packages, I would like
> to select a somewhat smaller group of people who I would *like* to
> make NMU's, when I'm away. (like libg++).
Well, do it then. What do you need a formal mechanism for?
> > Just what, exactly, will be different under the proposed scheme?
>
> The *encouragement*. A "Co-Maintainer" will be encouraged to make
> uploads whenever the real maintainer isn't there for some time, or is
Well, I don't see any encouragement in the original proposal. It looks to
me as if it says "Friends should always consult the maintainer first".
If anything, there's *dis*couragement for non-friends.
> > (You say that the current scheme is equivalent to Friends: nobody. Seems
> > to me that it rather is equivalent to Friends: debian-keyring instead.)
>
> No. I definately don't want to make it more dificult to do Non-Maintainer
> uploads by Non-Co-Maintainers. A "Non-Co-Maintainer" upload should be
> just as dificult as it is now.
Well, the procedure for friends in the original proposal sure _looks_ to
me as if it's the procedure for NMUs today.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: