Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)
* Peter Mathiasson [Tue, Sep 03 2002, 06:44:54PM]:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 02:19:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > NMUer time is better spent on really unmaintained packages.
Dito. Unused and maintained package are not bad, they will be excluded
if they have RC bugs. But frequently used packages with MIA maintainers
are worse, especially when nobody dares to make the NMU.
Even worse are the "mine, all mine" maintainers that want to be the
official maintainer of some prominent package, allowing noone to touch
the stuff, even if sHe has no time or no motivation to improve the
package or even fix the bugs.
Come on people, it is unstable and the transitions are announced. If the
particular maintainer does not follow the development, other should be
allowed to "help" him. If the package is really needed by some people,
and became uninstallable in unstable, that is a state of no-go and
should be fixed by NMUs, if neccessary. Of course, some quality tests
are better made by the maintainer, but obvious changes should not stop
the development. If really bad things happens just because of the
recompilation, than the package is faulty anyways.
Space Cadet wrote:
> wird jetzt aus meinem 100%-WindowsNTkompatiblen, 100%-absturzsicheren
> Microsoft Outlook Express 5.0 (ist übrigens auch Freeware) entfernt.
So ein Glück aber auch. Spart den Eintrag im Killfile.
(Jörg Fischer in dcoulh)