On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:26:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > 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. Uh, no. If it liberates you of anything, it'll likely be your ability to do any more NMUs. If the package is less useful to people after you do the NMU than before you started looking at it, that's a problem. If it was formerly able to be run by everyone no matter which architecture, and now no longer works on alpha, that's a problem. > 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 ? If you NMU a package you need to take responsibility for making that package work. If you don't want to do that, don't NMU, just submit a patch instead. If the patch doesn't go in for weeks or years, that's too bad; that's the difference between doing QA work -- making NMUs and taking responsibility for your uploads -- and submitting useful feature requests. > 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. You shouldn't be afraid of bugs, you should fix them. It's really that simple. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
Description: PGP signature