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

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch


Steve Langasek wrote:

It's easy to understand why people are opposed to too-frequent NMUs.  They
don't want to be seen as bad maintainers for having too many NMUs on their
packages; they worry about new bugs being introduced in the process; they
worry about sloppy fixes hiding bugs and preventing proper fixes from taking

My personal experience with NMUs has been pretty bad. In two cases, I needed to add cleanup code in the postinst to sort out the mess, and in one case the package turned Debian native. One "fixed" a problem where the optimized assembler code in the upstream package wasn't used (MMX assembler is bad, mmmkay?) and broke all other architectures at the same time by unconditionally enabling it.

That is why I ask that before an NMU, someone should show me the patch, and if I reply "I don't have time right now, okay to NMU that if you like" then it's fine (and in fact it is going to be the answer you will hear most from me ATM).

What would be Nice To Have(tm) would be a free-form text field on db.d.o where I could state my wishes about NMUs on my packages.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: