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

Re: [Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>] Do the HPPA "binary-only" NMUs violate the GPL?

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Matt Taggart wrote:

> James Troup writes...
> > Grr, guys please don't do this.  That's not what binary-only NMUs are
> > for.  If you need to make changes to the source, then do a sourceful
> > NMU.  As porters you have a lot more leeway WRT permission to do
> > sourceful NMUs (i.e. you don't necessarily have to ask permission,
> > wait silly amounts of time etc.).
> I suspect the majority of the cases where this is occurring is when
> config.{sub,guess} needs updating for hppa. When we encounter those we file
> a bug, update those files to the newest upstream version and do a binary-hppa
> upload. We figured that there was no reason to force the other archs to
> recompile and everyone to download the new package, etc. At some point we'll
> need to go back and review all those bugs to make sure they have been dealt
> with.
> What do you think? Would a source-NMU be better?

I'd suggest to send a RC bug that contains something like a "when you
make no upload and don't disagree I'll do a (source) NMU in one week".

> Thanks,


A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi

Reply to: