On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 01:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > However, if you proceed in accordance with a relaxed version of this > policy, you are no longer in a position of moral authority to assert > that a maintainer is negligent, incapable, or infested with fleas solely > on the grounds that he failed to capture the contents of your NMU in a > timely manner when you neither contacted the package maintainer prior to > the NMU nor uploaded your diff to the BTS. Or do I misrepresent your > reasons for bringing this issue onto a mailing list? I don't profess to be in a position of moral authority. I profess to be representing the facts that the package was de facto unmaintained and accumulating release-critical bugs for 14 months. If pursuing a "relaxed" NMU strategy results in race conditions, that is no less an indictment of my practices than those of a maintainer who takes so long to act on build-failures, using the excuse of doing "serious work" on the package, none of which is visible in the end product (instead the only visible differences between sather 1.2.1-2, when Eray adopted the package, and 1.2.1-5, his most recent MU, is the incorporation of changes made by NMU's in the interim). No, my failure to NMU as you would have me do does nothing to absolve Eray of poor package management practices for the 14 preceding months. Reverse causality is irrational. -- G. Branden Robinson | I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux | confuse me with the facts. branden@debian.org | -- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp7vUeqSz0be.pgp
Description: PGP signature