Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2002 Ari made a NMU for logjam 4.0.0+cvs.2002.11.17 and
> another one a few days after that date, IIRC, without a note to me.
> I was handling bugs for logjam, as you can see in BTS (#165281). Build
> failure reported by Junichi Uekawa in that bug was actually a
> libcurl-dev bug (#169654). I reported and maintainer closed with an
> So Ari made the NMU only to close a not so old wishlist bug filed by
> himself, faking to close #165281 with his upload. No bug for it against
> logjam and instead he closed it with an unuseful "New upstream version"
> entry in changelog. I was not MIA and he didn't write any note to me
> about his proposal for an NMU. Then he changed to a cvs version, while I
> have always packaged stable released version. No notes about it too.
> Then he did not follow our guidelines for NMU, because he uploaded
> directly to incoming and not to the 7-DAYS delayed queue, so I couldn't
> stop his NMU.
I had more here originally, but it's all pretty obvious. I can
summarise with the aphorism:
Where NMUs are concerned, get it right. All *else* can be forgiven.
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK