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

Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)



On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 10:53:47PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi John!
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > > So please ... don't complain about NMUers when they are only trying ot
> > > help you !
> > 
> > There's a difference between NMUs done right and NMUs done wrong.  The
> > latter may not be a help at all, whatever the intent may be.
> 
> So far, I've heard no objections to the _content_ of the NMU, only to
> the procedure.

The procedure is all that there _is_ to this NMU. I am assuming you did
nothing other than compile against the new perl.

Don't mess with other maintainers packages if you're not willing to do
it the right way.

I reiterate my request that you delete your NMU from the incoming queue
if you have not done so already. If nothing else, I have seen no
evidence that you have regression tested this code at all under the new
version of perl.

Do not NMU packages without following the established guidelines. The
world will _not_ end if you follow the damn guidelines - and they are
there for a reason.

Your BS about "it's the intent of a bug squashing party to _decrease_
the number of RC bugs" is completely irrelevent. There was no open bug
on this, so you're not decreasing bugs. This is a case where you should
be opening a bug. There is nothing _wrong_ with opening bugs - why do
you think we _have_ a BTS? If a bug even existed for this already, it
would certainly not be release critical.

-- 
Elie Rosenblum                 That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net   And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer             - _The Necronomicon_

Attachment: pgpYmwNaC2hk0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: