Re: NMU etiquette (arpwatch package)
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:30:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm glad to see that Peter has approved of your NMU proposal, as
> migrating away from hand-rolled debian/rules files is a goal that
> I heartily support. However, your original question was one of
> etiquette, and I don't think that's been addressed in this thread.
>
> Yes, replacing the build system of a package in an NMU without the
> consent of the maintainer is an NMU "faux pas". :-)
yep, i figured that. which is why i made a point of highlighting the
fact that i'd done it.
> NMUers should limit themselves to changes that directly fix bugs, and
> steer clear of design decisions regarding the packaging.
my initial intent was just to fix the MAC address sprintf for myself,
and use it on my own systems. then i looked at the dbs packaging for a
while and the amount of work involved in just figuring out how it worked
was too much, so i decided to just repackage the latest version for
myself. and, of course, i kept all the previous patches and changes from
the previous package. and then i fixed some of the other bug reports.
when i'd done all that i figured it would be a shame to let that work go
to waste on just my own systems and decided to find out about current
NMU practices. arpwatch is quite useful for those who need it and
doesn't really have any newer or better-maintained alternatives that do
the same job.
so, it's kind of an accidental NMU. i started off just wanting to fix
a very minor problem for myself and a few hours later ended up with a
complete new package.
anyway, i'll be testing my arpwatch package on my own boxes for a while
and, if i haven't introduced any new bugs, i'll upload it in a few days.
> If some of those design decisions mean no one is willing to NMU the
> package and the package falls into disrepair as a result, then it's a
> candidate for orphaning via the QA team processes; but we shouldn't
> force the issue by replacing a build system we don't like with another
> that the /maintainer/ may dislike just as much when they come back to
> the package.
apart from occasional NMU over the last 5 years, arpwatch seems
abandoned. IMO a working, updated, bug-fixed package is better than
just letting it drop out of debian entirely - especially when it does a
unique and useful job that no other package does.
but then, i've never been precious about ownership of packages - mine or
anyone else's. IMO, getting stuff done is far more important than WHO
does it. and if the package's official maintainer doesn't like what was
done in an NMU they can always ignore it or re-do it in their preferred
style when they get around to it.
but if Peter K had said not to upload it, i'd keep it as a private
package, or just put it up on my web site for anyone else to download
outside of debian.
i may have misread it but Peter seemed to hint that he'd like someone to
adopt arpwatch...hopefully the new form of the package will make it more
appealing (or less unappealing) to someone.
> Other "polite" conventions regarding NMUs are spelled out in the developer's
> reference <http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu>.
thanks.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Reply to: