Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:53:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No. They're most probably not through any *fault* of the NMUer. Nevertheless
> they are *still* the *responsibility* of the NMUer.
>
> > 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 ?
>
> I don't understand what you're saying. "would will a FTBFS RC bug" ?
Ok, i explain more in detail.
Let's say i do translataion work, for that i have to build the package,
and notice that it FTBFS (at least on some obscure arch or something). I
then fill a FTBFS bug report, thus liberating me of the responsability
you want to trust on me, and then NMU the translation improved package.
How can then the responsability be on the NMUer, if it was already
present before ?
And then, how can the NMUer in this case be responsible for some poorly
maintained package to FTBFS ? just because he happened to do some
translation work for it ?
Or are we going to get afraid of making bugfixes or something because a
given unmaintained package possibly might FTBFS, and we will not trigger
it. For that matter, i guess people are now afraid to build packages,
because of the new glibc being broken and holding everything.
Disclaimer : i never did translation work, and probably never will, my
written french being not much better than my english one.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: