Re: Processed: Fixed in NMU of tetex-base 2.0.2c-2.1
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
> 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
> new revision.
>
> 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.
As stated before, I see now that the NMU was okay. However, I was really
annoyed this morning to find in my mailbox the mail indicating the bug
was Fixed, but found no notice of this in the bug, or anywhere but the
changelog.
If anybody had cared to inform me about the problems the bug had caused,
I would probably have delayed the testing of the other changes in our
CVS, and prepared an upload myself. The fixed package could have hit
unstable _earlier_ than the NMU did.
Or I could simply have stayed at the university an hour longer yesterday
evening, and make the upload of 2.0.2c-3 nearly at the same time as
LaMonts NMU.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: