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

Re: re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 07:45:55PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> He didn't mail the maintainer.  And base packages should require more lead
> time.

The reason base packages often require more lead time is that they
tend to be more complicated, increasing the liklihood of breakage when
inexperienced people touch it, and they tend to be more widely used,
increasing the number of people who are affected by any breakage.

The lead time is *solely* to avoid breakage -- if breakage can be avoided
by some other means that don't introduce the same delay, that's a Good
Thing.  If the breakage has been avoided, then you've got no cause to
complain at all; although warning future NMUers that they'd better do
just as good a job (or else) is certainly fair.

The lead time is *not* there to salve the injured pride of developers of
base packages. NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.

IMO, of course.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: