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

Re: Too much disruptive NMUs

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 08:40:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/05/10 at 15:07 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
> > making NMUs to fix critical/very important bugs. However, lately I have been
> > seeing a lot of NMUs that are being very disruptive [0], you have a couple of
> > examples below [1]. (This is not against Jari or Nobihuro, they are just the 
> > latest examples I have seen today).
> > 
> > I know this is done with the best intentions but if you think the package 
> > is in bad shape or neglected by the maintainer then it might better write 
> > to mia@, debian-qa@ or open a bug asking whether the package should be 
> > orphaned (or even removed). Both examples below are candidates to be orphaned.
> > 
> > If you think this kind of changes are good, please start a discussion about
> > changing this in the developers-reference.
> Our standard process for addressing issues with such packages is the MIA
> process. However, the MIA process takes quite a lot of time, and it has
> happen in the past that it was completely stalled due to a lack of
> manpower. Also, there are cases where the maintainer will respond to the
> MIA team, preventing the orphaning of his packages, despite not working
> on his packages.

Both true, unfortunately.

> So, I think that preparing an NMU that fixes small problems in the
> package at the same time as contacting the MIA team is a good thing. It
> helps to improve the quality of Debian, and alleviates the problem of
> temporarily busy maintainer.


> I'd like to encourage Jari and Nobihuro to continue that work, but to
> make sure that:
> - they contact the MIA team about the maintainers of the packages they
>   NMU
> - the packages they NMU are really _useful_ and should be kept in Debian
> - they don't NMU actively maintained packages by mistake. If there are
>   documented efforts to contact the maintainer, using the DELAYED queue
>   with a long delay would help with that.

Ack but still:

- don't be too disruptive!

I don't think that changing to dh7, i.e. debian/rules to the tiniest
form, switching a package from dpatch to quilt to finally switch it to
3.0 (quilt) are changes that should be done, even if they seem useful.
And there are more examples.

I guess the problem is, as usual, where to draw the line.


 .''`.   Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org>               www.jhr-online.de
: :'  :  Debian Developer                                 www.debian.org
`. `'`   Member of the Linux Foundation                    www.linux.com
  `-     Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe      www.fsfe.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: