Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 06:21:14PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I'd know this would come. doogie, you have my full sympathies and
> > I've been aware of this situation. However, using this as an argument
> > for dpkg's status is just plain wrong. I remind people of Bug
> > #212796. RC bug filed on 26 Sep, breaking other packages to build
> > from source. Joey Hess threatended to NMU dpkg on 30 Sep because
> > there was no response; on 8 Oct Joey Hess said doogie promised "soon".
> > Upload: 25 Oct. One month for a RC bug breaking other packages...
> No excuse for that incident. Sorry for taking so long.
> But just because I was too busy to do an actual upload, doesn't mean I
> was too busy to read email.
Adam, as far as I can tell you're *always* too busy to read e-mail. I
remind you of the BTS move to spohr, which I mentioned on owner@bugs
multiple times several weeks in advance; but the first you claimed to
have heard of it was when you said something along the lines of "eh,
what, why wasn't I told about this?" the very evening I was performing
Responsiveness with respect to dpkg is essential to the project.
> ps: Sometimes I take so long in doing dpkg uploads, not because I'm
> busy or lazy, but because I want a large set of packages to upgrade
> with apt, so that I can test out my new dpkg changes.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]