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

Re: Processed: Fixed in NMU of tetex-base 2.0.2c-2.1

On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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
> new revision.

I don't see how this should be a point of contention at all; the requirement
that diffs from NMUs be posted to the BTS has been explicit for a very long
time.  It is the responsibility of the NMUer to ensure that the diffs are
delivered to the maintainer for inspection via the BTS.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: