[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 02:19:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> A NMU is a waste of effort if the same thing can be done by the maintainer
> after just one quick email message -- primarily a waste of effort for the
> NMUer who has to go in and figure out how to fix the package, not the
> maintainer. If we can save others that time by doing what we're simply
> supposed to do, well, I see no reason not to do that.

This argument is bogus. Updating a Build-Depends and rebuilding the
package is trivial (not least because the system is designed to make
it trivial).

Also, in general, it's hard to create a suitable patch and send it to
the BTS, and trivial to apply the patch and build the package.

And lastly, am I the only one who finds complaining about *other
people* wasting effort to be insane in a volunteer-based organisation?
There's a difference between advice, and telling people what to spend
their time on.

There may be valid reasons for not making NMUs in these circumstances,
but this is not one of them.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpFpQ_xp0Zj4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: