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

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

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

Reply to: