On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:06:51PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:53:34PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote: > > > > Sorry, the question is: > > Is it okay to do an NMU with a new upstream version? > > > > Depending on the answer to that question, two more arise: > > - did I wait long enough for the maintainer to take action himself? > > - and is anyone willing to sponsor that NMU? > > > > Sorry, but a NMU (but for QA uploads) is generally an 'in extremis' > choice to correct bugs, or to be done when the maintainer appears > inactive (or possibly MIA). Changing upstream version is not But he seems to be MIA. I reported the bug 16 days ago, told him about my package 9 days ago. I never got a response. The bug itself is even older. > a good thing, 'cause it can introduce more errors than corrections. > Leave this at maintainer choices. Eventually open a wishlist bug > or send a backported patch. I already reported the bug, and someone else did as well a day later. The package is nearly unusable with the bug. But my fixed version works flawlessly. Greetings, Oliver -- debian/rules http://zork.net/~nick/srom/
Attachment:
pgp3X4PwcL5tx.pgp
Description: PGP signature