Julian Mehnle wrote: > Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >>Tobias Wolter wrote: >>>I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop >>>ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK? >>And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work >>harder? For *you* ?? Get real. > Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being > notified: I get the impression maybe you should think over why you have > accepted maintainership of the package. If you are maintaining it for your > own sake only, then maybe you should give up maintainership and use a > self-maintained, forked copy of the package. How about putting things back into proportion. There was quite an annying bug in the required base package sysvinit and we all thought it was bad to have it around for a week. (And yes, my pbuilder chroot broke, too, and so I had to make my own 4.1 which looked pretty much the same as the NMU.) This has been duely expressed in the fourfold bug report and on the -devel list. And yes, the NMU did not follow the recommended procedures and upset the maintainer. And many thought that was bad and it, too, was thoroughly discussed on the list. However, it should also be noted that this has been the only complaint about the NMU. So why is there the need of telling people to orphan their packages? After all, there's little indication that there is a severe and persistent problem at issue. Cheers T.
Attachment:
pgp6arqUZRQE3.pgp
Description: PGP signature