re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
Subject: re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:44:18 -0500
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The contents of the upload weren't approved. We had no idea what the
> contents of that upload would contain. No single diff was ever sent
> first, just a mail to -changes, and mails from katie.
>> > When preparing an nmu, one should do the changes, create a diff, file a
>> > bug
>> > with the diff, wait, then upload. These steps *were not done*.
>> I'm so going to hate myself for this, but I'm going to quote policy at
>> Also, after doing an NMU, you have to open a new bug and include a
>> patch showing all the changes you have made. Alternatively you can
>> send that information to the existing bugs that are fixed by your
>> -- 184.108.40.206. Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System
>> The bugs fixed by this NMU were *ALREADY* marked with the [patch] tag,
>> except one which was a trivial one line fix that was already fixed on
>> CVS HEAD.
>> I believe, in of itself, that this would've sufficed for policy. I went
>> further than this, and updated each bug with the individual patch
>> applied, including ChangeLog entry, for easier analysis.
> Any upload involes more than just applying patches, or fixing bugs that
> no patch. There are other changes that must occur(like changes to the
> changelog headers, version-nr kinda stuff, other misc. things), that have
> no reason to be mailed to individual bugs.
OK, so boiling your complaint down to the actual facts: you're complaining
because Scott didn't send the changelog headers and version number to the
dpkg mailing list. (Yes, those were the only changes which were not
bug-specific.) That's the *only* way in which he could be said to have
"not followed policy" or "not followed procedure". Furthermore, you're
claiming that this is dangerous and a security risk.
You appear to be overreacting by several orders of magnitude. I'm sorry
about the difficulties in your personal life, and hope that when you are
feeling better you will behave more rationally.
>> I leave it to the audience whether an NMU to fix Release Critical bugs
>> that had been ignored by the maintainers is correct, or not. Especially
>> in the pre-release state we should all be in by now.
> As for that security bug, I had read that, and agreed it was a problem. I
> hadn't given time to thing about the implications of a fix, whatever it
> is. Now you've gone and done it, and I still don't know if I agree with
It's obviously correct. Next.
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first: