Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit*
> > developers from sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a
> > sponsored NMU is a broken one, because responsibility for the NMU
> > lies with the uploader, not with the sponsoree.
> Does that mean that your opinion is that sponsored NMU's should be
> forbidden? I would regret that. It's not bad that someone in the NM
> queue also does NMU's to help fixing other packages. And I don't see
> a problem with responsability if the sponsor is aware of that
A sponsored NMU basically means taking the patch for the NMU just like
you would from a RC bug that had a patch, testing it just like you
would normally, and making the upload just as you would for any other
Since you're responsible for the NMU anyway, there's really no
sponsoring going on; you're just using a pre-existing patch as the
basis of your NMU.
Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of
entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public
attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle
had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had
manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence
-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228