On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:49:14PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > How about we start from the simple issue of notifying maintainers and making > sure they are _aware_ of the exact problems? People can be reasonably alert > for fixing their packages without knowing what's that's going on in the > bigger scheme of things. One can argue about that being done through the d-d-a post. IMO it's just no big deal, nothing to get upset about ... > > Why get so upset about a, what I can tell from this discussion, working > > NMU. > > Nobody's upset. ... and I'm glad you're not :) > > Though, a BTS entry would have been good, it wouldn't have made the > > maintainer aware of the problem earlier (unless the NMU was delayed > > until the maintainer had a time to fix it himself, of course). > > The whole point of mailing beforehand is to leave it up to the maintainer to > fix the bugs in their packages instead of wasting effort on doing NMUs. What I'm trying to say is, does it really matter? Why not just make a maintainer upload when you have time, be it before or after the NMU enters the pool. For you the NMU seems like a waste of time, but it was not a waste of _your_ time, nor of the current maintainers (except for looking at a diff which changed nothing but the build-depends field from what I can tell, w/o looking at neither the package nor the NMU). -- Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228
Attachment:
pgpr2P8x_UAJ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature