Re: miscfiles NMU?
Petter Reinholdtsen <email@example.com> writes:
> You don't have to see NMUs as hostile acts. It is better for the
> project if we see them as a helping hand. As far as I know it is
> acceptable to NMU also for non-RC bugs.
I don't see NMUs as hostile acts. Many times I have had a very
helpful NMU of a package of mine. But this was an NMU that isn't
helpful; it only creates more work for me.
Section 5.11.3 of the developers' reference says that an NMU is only
allowed for serious or higher bugs.
> > You must attempt to contact the developer of a package, and NMU's
> > are not appropriate without permission for anything less than a
> > serious bug.
> Trying to contact the developer is a must, yes.
> > Revert the NMU immediately.
> You claim in another email that the NMU destabilise the package. How
> can these changes do that? The changes seem sane to me. Fixing typos
> and dependencies. What is wrong with them?
Fixing typos, in fact, is exactly whan an NMU must not do. See
5.11.4: "First and foremost...do not do housekeeping tasks, do not
change the names of modules or files". "Aesthetic changes must NOT be
made in a non-maintainer upload."
And look at section 5.11.3. He didn't send a message to me. He
didn't wait a few days. He didn't announce an intention to NMU. He
didn't upload to the delayed queue.
I have no way of checking the changes, to see whether they are good or
not. I have no way of knowing whether there is a destabilizing change
or not; this in itself is destabilizing. I just have to wait and see.
As one example, he updated telephone area code information based
apparently only on the say-so of the bug reporter. Many times I have
had bug reporters give incorrect information. Did he verify the
information in any way? How does he know it's really a bug?