Re: Where are we now? (Was: Bits from the RM)
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Or, alternatively, this was the only crappy NMU that was noticed while
> quite a few others were made against ancient packages with inactive
> maintainers who didn't notice or didn't care. I'm not terribly
> interested in going through all the NMUs done and attempting to prove
> this but I find it more likely than the possibility that only one poor
> NMU was done during that period.
No, you're not alone; I got to clean up after an overly hasty NMU of
fltk 1.0.x that switched to G++ 3.x without adding c102. (I must
admit, however, the package was asking for trouble by neither forcing
the right [older] compiler version nor even carrying a warning about
the situation in the BTS.) Fortunately, I was able to react in time
to keep that NMU from advancing beyond incoming.
Nevertheless, I feel that the 0-day NMU period generally went quite
well.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger amu@monk.mit.edu (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Reply to: