Re: Processed: Fixed in NMU of tetex-base 2.0.2c-2.1
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > I'm sorry the NMU annoyed you but I welcome it. There is nothing worse
> > than a package that kills buildds, esspecially such a common one.
> I agree. But still LaMont should have expressed his intent to do so, and
> send the patch to the BTS. I don't have a problem with being NMUed, but
> with NMUs prepared improperly.
At this point, any RC bug in an important (as in for the release, not
priority-wise) package is an implicit express to be NMUd, at any time.
Deal with it, we want to release.
One could argue about sending the NMU-patch/interdiff to the BTS, but I
personally do not see much point in it, since (hi Omnic!) you can just
get it from the archive and sync it yourself. It still makes sense for
packages where you suspect the maintainer to be inactive/not willing to
deal with this or (as is the case here apparently) already working on a
In any case, NMUs are never meant as personal attacks or gratuitous.
Especially when they are done by buildd maintainers you can be certain
there was some need for it.
I envision a time where there are no more NMUs, just uploads by people