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

Re: Advice with uncooperative maintainers

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 04:20:02AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:04:39PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 12-Aug-04, 10:04 (CDT), Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> wrote: 
> > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:20:45AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > > >   Obviously these bugs are important to you, but not everyone else will
> > > > place them at the same priority level.
> > > 
> > > That's totaly correct.  (And this is what NMUs are for).
> > 
> > Ah, no, they are not. They are for doing something that the maintainer
> > would do if zie had the time, and that fixes a significant bug. They are
> > not for implementing random wishlift stuff.
> I don't take my wishlist reports from /dev/random.  Even though most of the
> wishlist bugs I have sent lately are FTBFS bugs, feature requests are also a
> valid reason to NMU if the maintainer doesn't object to them.
> I would say that even cosmetical changes are ok for an NMU, provided that the
> maintainer doesn't object to them (But I don't have interest in filing such
> bugs, let alone interest to NMU). 

Just for the record, Ryan has just uploaded v0.2.34 (the latest upstream
version, afaik) of esd, so at least I am very pleased...  Please try
that one (should be available in tomorrow's sync, at least on the
not-overloaded-buildd platforms...) before continuing with this thread,

Regards: David Weinehall
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Reply to: