Re: NMU policies for etch
Petter Reinholdtsen <email@example.com> wrote:
> [Olaf van der Spek]
>> If there's no approval, shouldn't 'that' be fixed also?
> Depends on the form of the lack of approval. If there is no reply,
> the MIA process should be started, and if there is a NACK, the NMU
> should not go throught without further discussion. But one should not
> have to waint for the MIA process to complete before doing NMUs to fix
> bugs in packages without a maintainer with time to follow up on his
I agree in general; however I don't think it is appropriate to start the
MIA process (and will probably "fail") just because a maintainer didn't
answer to some "normal" bug with a patch. People have very different
ways to do their Debian work. Myself, I'm a communicator, and if you
don't receive any reply after a couple of days you can consider me on
vacation, or MIA.
Others stay silent, but do their work, and after one or a couple of
weeks there's an upload which fixes your bug, among others. I think we
should respect these people's way to do their work, and not interfere
with NMUs just because we think we shouldn't release with that bug.
Things are maybe different if it's only a couple of days until the
freeze (at least in the sense that under these circumstances, people are
"oblidged to communicate"). Sarge had of course the problem that for
at least three months the freeze was essentially scheduled for "next
week", and eight more where it was scheduled "real soon now". But that
won't happen again, hopefully.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich