Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting Martin Quinson (martin.quinson@tuxfamily.org):
> > > > binary-only uploads are clearly not the same.
> > > Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source code of
> > > the package neither.
> > Hummm. Technically speaking, it does..?:-). With the source code of
> > the package....not with the upstream source code.
>
> New uploads will often trigger dormant bugs due to changes in the
> toolchain, too. If a package hasn't been uploaded since gcc-2.95 was
> current, a new upload built with gcc-3.3 will often not work even if the
> only source changes were some grammar corrections in a README file, eg.
>
> It's the NMUer's responsibility to fix these bugs too.
Err, FTBFS are RC bugs, most probably not of the responsability of the
NMUer. Especially if the NMUer just did some translation work or
something.
What would you say if instead of doing the NMU, the potential uploader
would will a FTBFS RC bug, and then make an NMU which fixes the
translation problem. Would it then still be his responsability to fix
the FTBFS bug ?
And it is always better to fix those FTBFS bugs, than to silently ignore
them and hoping that another RC bug doesn't force us to rebuild anyway.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: