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

Re: re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 02:53, Adam Heath wrote:

> >> Why did you nmu dpkg?  I see no mail from you on the mailing list about
> >> preparing an nmu.

> > Because the package had Release-Critical bugs open against it which, for
> > whatever reason, had not been acted upon by the maintainers.  All of
> > these were over a month old.
> [...]
> > Of course, you should know all of this already because I mailed a full
> > and detailed summary of everything we discussed to you and Wichert (the
> > contents of the dpkg Uploaders: field).  It made specific mention of our
> > intent to upload a version of dpkg to fix the release-critical bugs.

> > I mailed it to you personally to ensure you read it, as you haven't been
> > active on debian-dpkg for at least a month and Wichert hasn't in the
> > past 6 months!  For the audience out there, this includes any bug
> > activity for dpkg.
> [...]

> Hello,
> Afaict the only thing that is open for discussion is whether you
> followed the protocol in developer's reference correctly.

> And ticking of the checklist there is just one missing piece of
> information - the timeline.  How much time did pass between the
> "intend to NMU"-mail and the actual upload? (Did you use a DELAYED
> queue?) - My gut feeling says that 2-3 days between mailing the
> maintainer and uploading the package to ftp-master would have been
> appropriate (7 days - (release-cycle bonus + rc-bug bonus)).

The waiting period is not an end unto itself, but a guideline to protect
against unnecessary duplication of effort or botched uploads.  It sounds
pretty clear to me that the first was not an issue, so if the NMU was
*correct*, there's no reason to crucify Scott here.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: