Re: Processed: Fixed in NMU of tetex-base 2.0.2c-2.1
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 07:04:57AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck 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.
>
> 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.
Yeah, you're right, there's nothing to argue about here. I was trying to
state my personal POV, but (i) that's irrelevant and (ii) I was not
clear on the general case.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: