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

Re: Bug#243129: NMU in DELAYED/3-DAY

David Pashley <david@davidpashley.com> writes:

> I have uploaded a NMU fixing this bug into DELAYED/3-DAY. I have
> included the diff.

But u should have taken care of your chocolate eggs instead.

Some history :

arkrpg was buggued for a srange FTBFS problem in 2004-04-11.
David Pashley decided a delayed 3-days nmu on 2004-04-12.

This pkg is building on all architectures because many problems have
already been corrected. Since a while no build problems have been
reported, and upstream version has not changed since a long time.
No bug on my own pkgs have taken more than a week to be adressed.

As this is not a really grave bug, and as i am taking care of my
pakages, i see no real reason for nmu-ing only one day after the bug
Moreover, this person should have forgotten about Easter week.

Mr David Pashley, you should really reread 5.11.3 of Debian Developer's
Reference on how and when do an NMU.

Consequently, your silly upload is solving the problem for this person
but you added a Build-Depends without thinking of its real utility.
How can you explain this pkg is not missing on so many other systems ?
How can you argue a sdl+mesa program which is never using other X/Xt
functions directly needs such a (static, what is nmore) library ?
It rather seem a quick dirty hack !

So now it is like i've got a knife on my throat, like if i was one of
the so many maintainers uploading a fix twice a year on their packages.
What to do if i've got more important problems to solve on other
packages ? leave this dirty NMU enter unstable ? or upload a dummy pkg
to avoid this crap ?

NMU is for serious problems, serious reasons, and i disagree my pkgs
being damaged like this.
Sometimes, i really wonder why some are working hard to be proud entering
Debian, and why some already inside think they can do everything,
especially on non-DD...

Marc Dequènes (Duck)

Attachment: pgpZrdt2gJ3_Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: