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

Re: Sponsoring questions; are sponsored NMU's allowed?

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:

> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:38:41AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
>> That way you would give credit to the person doing the work. But why
>> not just leave J. Helpfull Non-DD in the Changelog?
> Because I have done quite a lot of work on the patch, too. I have to.
> Also, when I upload stuff to the archive, the processing mails get sent
> to the address in the Changed-By field; if that's someone else than
> whoever is doing the upload, it's kind of a nuisance if things don't get
> processed (since you get to guess instead of to read why something
> doesn't get processed).

Now that is a good argument. Forgot about that.

>> >> So how would I source NMU for example amiga-fdisk? Or get any m68k
>> >> binary-only upload into the archive?
>> >
>> > You should generally talk to an m68k porter (although this could be one
>> > of those rare exceptions where it could indeed be appropriate to get a
>> > sponsored NMU).
>> >
>> > That said, I don't think Steve was talking about binary-only NMU's, or
>> > NMU's of architecture-specific packages.
>> He didn't exclude any of them and its excatly those rare exceptions
>> where a sponsored NMU would make sense that get hurt by disalowing
>> them on principle.
> Steve said, and I quote,
> 	Are sponsored NMUs allowed?  They are allowed in the sense that
> 	there's nothing in place to prevent them.  But I don't see any
> 	reason why we would want to encourage the practice.
> That's not the same thing as "they're not allowed", sorry.
>> All DDs I know don't sponsor or NMU lightly and sponsoring an NMU is
>> even more rare.
> With good reason.
>> I allways found that encouraging for Debian in general even if it
>> personally anoyed me at the same time by making fixing things
>> harder. I want it to be hard for others so I have to live with it
>> being hard too. But to disalow the option alltogether or
>> discourage them even further?
> No, it shouldn't be forbidden; but yes, I agree with Steve that it
> should not be encouraged either.

Fair enough.


Reply to: