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:
pgp_WF3hH16O4.pgp
Description: PGP signature