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

Re: RFS: source NMU for jmon (approved by maintainer)

On Sat, 04, Dec, 2004 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Christoph Berg spoke thus..
> Re: Steve Langasek in <[🔎] 20041204104623.GN30152@mauritius.dodds.net>
> > Regardless of the maintainer's comments, DDs should not sponsor NMUs; it is
> > the responsibility of the uploading developer to personally verify the
> > correctness of the changes in an NMU, and it is incorrect to upload changes
> > in an NMU that have not first been forwarded to the BTS, therefore it's
> > simpler if you upload any patches to the BTS and ask someone to do an NMU
> > for the bug, rather than asking someone to upload based on packages that
> > you've prepared separately.
> I'd expect any sponsored upload to be checked by the sponsoring DD, be
> it uploads for packages I (as a non-DD) maintain, for NMUs, or for QA
> uploads. Preparing a (source) package and asking for a sponsor is
> merely to ease the uploading DD's task, who will rebuild the binary
> package anyway in most cases. (And if it's a proper NMU, there will be
> a patch in the BTS anyway.)

That's what I thought.  I know that (for good reasons), binary NMUs
aren't allowed by non-DDs but I don't really see a difference between
somebody sponsoring a package (where they need to check the original
.tar.gz and .diff.gz as well as policy conformation etc), and sponsoring
a prepared source NMU (where only the .diff.gz and relevant bugs have to
be checked to make sure they're ok).  Obviously, if this is policy, I'll
leave it at that and just ask the maintainer to hopefully do an upload
before sarge.


Mark Hymers, University of Newcastle Medical School
Intercalating Medical Student (MBBS / PhD)

Reply to: