Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
Alexander Wirt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Jari Aalto schrieb am Sunday, den 23. May 2010:
>> [When package was not maintained]
>> In addition to fixing the RC bugs, minor updates were usually done at
>> the same time. This was done for the reasons that in case the packages
>> were later orphaned or the maintainer were MIA, it would be more
>> desireable to have a well shaped package in archive. The minor changes
>> - update to latest debhelper (In many times no debian/rules changes;
>> possibly update deprecated dh_clean to dh_prep")
>> - use packaging format 3.0 (delete quilt if it was used)
>> - update compat to 7
> I don't find anything of them acceptable for an nmu.
>> The DEP1 does't specifially encourage fixing anything else than the BUG
>> at hand, and that's a very good rule for actively maintained packages.
> That dep thingys are no policy. imho these uploads violate the nmu policy.
It was later turned into policy.
So there is not room for discreet judgement for cases like:
- active maintainer
- non-active maintainer and for case like: years old package, 6+
months old FTBFS, or ancient 3..x policy in debian/control?
That'd be a loss, quality wise.