Re: Advice with uncooperative maintainers
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:17:01PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:26:21PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> On 1 Aug 2004, I sent a wishlist bug report to the 'esound' package, with
>>> an attached patch that fixed the problem. I noticed that Ryan is not
>> Bug# for the wishlist? NMU Bug#? More information would be nice.
>> > > esound (0.2.29-2) unstable; urgency=low
>> > > * Instead of using select() for OSS, use SNDCTL_DSP_GETOSPACE.
>> > > * Revert changes in unsanctioned NMU.
>> > > -- Ryan Murray <firstname.lastname@example.org> Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:28:59 -0700
>> > Also, he removed all trace of my upload in the debian/changelog file.
FWIW I think that is ok if the other changes from the NMU were
dropped, too. - The changes made are not in the package, therefore
should not be claimed to have been made in debian/changelog.
We still differ quite strongly between _real_ uploads and NMUs. NMUs
need to use a special version number and they do not close bugs. -
Bugs are only closed by the maintainer if he accepts the changes made
in the NMU and incorporates. - This supports the idea that a NMU can
also be rejected by the maintainer.
Be aware that I have not passed any judgement whether
esound is maintained properly or not, just that I think a package
maintainer has the right to reject changes made in a NMU.
>> If the NMU was installed, he ought to keep the changelog entry. Otherwise
>> (if it never made it out of incoming), the point is really academic.
> Not really out of incoming, but out of UploadQueue, as once katie has
> run and got the package, you need to push your verssion number to get
> another package allowed in (as he did). So the question now when
> somebody reads the changelog is: where is version 0.2.29-1?
-1 is in the changelog of course, because it was the last maintainer
upload before -2, the NMUs were -1.1 to -1.3. as can be seen on