Re: What doing with an uncooperative maintainer ?
* Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:01:54AM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > It isn't. There are some nice features in the new version. It's
> > called "beta", but runs very stable.
>
> So there are no non-wishlist bugs that would be fixed by the new
> upload -- just the addition of new features?
The NMU would also close a minor bugreport, but that's secondary.
> It's my impression that Ryan is atypically hostile towards NMUers;
> however, the case here for an NMU, at least as it's been presented
> to this mailing list, doesn't seem very strong.
So, what's your suggestion instead of an NMU?
> It would be better to have the issues concretely documented in the
> BTS before attempting to hijack.
It _is_ documented in the BTS.
> Maybe the reasons why the new upstream is so much better than the
> current package are obvious to you -- they're certainly not obvious
> to me.
Maybe...
Ryan has been asked more than once, why he doesn't want the new
version in unstable.
Norbert
--
.''`.
: :' : Norbert Tretkowski <nobse@debian.org>
`. `' Debian GNU/Linux Developer - http://www.debian.org/
`-
Reply to: