[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installed sather 1.2.1-5 (i386 all source)

On 29/10/01, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:44:31AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > While I suspect with high probability that your statement is correct,
> > I think that your message to debian-devel didn't include enough detail
> > to be useful.  

> His changelog entry said:

> >    * fix: the correct build dependencies are tcl/tk 8.2 rather than 8.3.
> >      sather doesn't build with 8.3 yet.

> The build dependencies were already fixed thus in 1.2.1-4.  If he had bothered
> to look at that version of the package, he'd have known that.  Instead,
> evidence indicates that aside from being aware of its existence, he completely
> ignored it.

> That is not the proper way to recognize an NMU.

But you did notice the following entry in the changelog?

| * Add stuff from Branden Robinson's timely NMU

So he recognized not only that you made a NMU, but also added some stuff
from it to his package. So for me this sounds like he accepted that NMU
with one exception, the build-dependency stuff. Maybe he knows about
some problems when using tcl/tk 8.3 instead of 8.2, or wants to inspect
that patch more careful before applying it? There are some reasons why
it's (at least for me) acceptable, when a part of a NMU will be
reverted. I don't want to offend you, Branden or Eray, but did you two
communicate about this NMU and the planned changes? And Branden, did you
talk with Eray about this fix and why it has been made, before mailing
to this list? 

Branden, I don't think that your patch[1] was wrong, but you should also
be aware that on the one hand NM don't know everything all ready and are
mostly thankful for any help or hint they receive and on the other hand
bashing a NM on this list is not appropriate list content or behaviour.
Such problems should be solved by communication between the NM, who
maintains the package, his Sponsor, the person who made the NMU and
maybe the AM. Only where there's no solution available, then this issue
should be discussed on one of the lists, but then with more details.


[1] I haven't seen it and do know not enough about sather to check it.
           Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgphUbyy9PmdL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: