* Andreas Metzler (ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org) wrote: > Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question. Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference which talks about your responsibilities when doing an NMU: "Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced with your NMU." Now, this works fine when the official maintainer is going to follow up; it doesn't work worth a damn if the official maintainer isn't taking care of the package at all anymore. Prior to doing an NMU you tend to have a pretty good idea which is the case, or you should at least. > [...] > > I've pointed out numerous times in this thread already why it's wrong to > > believe that you can NMU a package without having any responsibility to > > it afterwards, except maybe for the bits you changed. Having that kind > > of an attitude is detrimental to the distribution as a whole. > [...] > > I've loosely followed the thread but your only argument in favour of > this statement seems to be that if people NMU'd to upgrade the > translation there will be an delay in us recognizing the package missing > a proper maintainer and orphaning or removing it. > > I do not think that argument holds, an unmaintained package will show > other signs of negligance, and the qa people checking for unmaintained > packages know how to differ between NMU and maintainer upload. You've obviously not been paying very much attention at all then. You should have a pretty good idea if the package is unmaintained or not prior to doing an NMU. If it's not then you're uploading a package which fixes some specific bug but leaves the package unmaintained. That's irresponsible. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpOm_kgS2SzQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature