[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:36 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:29:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Right now Sven Luther has a [patch] bug against kernel-package, but
>> I am not comfortable with the change, [..]

> You should consider removing the patch tag then:

>    patch
>           A patch or some other easy procedure for fixing the bug is
>           included in the bug logs. If there's a patch, but it
>           doesn't resolve the bug adequately or causes some other
>           problems, this tag should not be used.

	But things are not quite so cut and dried. Sven's patch does
 indeed fix the problem, though I believe there is a less complex way
 (and the only reason I can say this is because I know kernel-package
 better, Sven's patch is a straight-forward approach to solving the
 issue).  So it does solve the problem, and I can't point to any
 problems it causes -- it may make the system more complex than
 needed, which in turn may make debugging/development a trifle
 harder. Not enough for a removal of the [patch] tag, IMO.

> Not that this is any excuse for not being careful when working out
> what to do in an NMU, though.

	Or making a reasonable effort about asking the developer
 (except, of course, in case of RC bugs, where we on occasion have
 0-day NMU policies in effect).

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:12:56 +0100, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> said: 

> In this case I'd send mail to the bug report explaining so, and
> remove the tag "patch". (On the other hand, during preparation of a
> NMU, I ask the maintainer if there are any issues against a patch
> that's already in the BTS.)

	Now that would work. Any email exchange, and I would bring the
 issue up, and provide the as yet inchoate ideas I  have about the
 alternate solution. But I go on  business trips, vacations, etc, and
 while I may have access to email, a 3 day notice may not be enough to
 elicit a response.

	Of course, if the bug were release critical, I think that
 0-day NMU policies are fine (and I would replace the solved package
 with the alternate solution in time); but non-RC NMU's would irritate
 me, unless they had an *email exchange*.

The honeymoon is over when he phones to say he'll be late for supper
and she's already left a note that it's in the refrigerator. Bill
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: