Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:45:31 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Sponsoring an NMU should be absolutely no different than the developer just
> doing the NMU him/herself. If it is, then that developer is doing
> something horrible wrong anyway.
The difference is in how quickly the package gets fixed. If I file a
patch w/ the BTS, and wait for someone to fix it, it might take a long
time. Alternatively, if I ask a sponsor to NMU a package, they may or may
not be interested in doing that (depending on how busy they are, whether
they use the package, whether they have the hardware/environment to
properly test the package, etc). However, if I have a NMU package
prepared for the sponsor, that's one less step for the DD to do, so the
chances of it happening quickly are greatly increased. Let's also not
forget that a package may have multiple RC bugs open, it will take more
time for a DD to build a package w/ patches from various bug reports,
versus an already prepared (and presumably tested) .diff.gz.
Ultimately, it's a trust issue; you might find it dangerous for a DD to
trust the non-DD, but that's the path that Debian has chosen by making
sponsorship a requirement for NM, and the NM process itself so drawn out.