Re: sponsored NMU's to be forbidden (Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?)
Bart Martens <bartm@knars.be> wrote:
> I'm aware that person C is mentioned in the changelog of the package,
> and not person D. I don't see a problem with that. Note that person B
> can be a non-DD too, so there we have non-DD's in changelogs too.
When I'm person D, I usually ask person C to put a "upload sponsored by
person D" line into the changelog, irrespective of whether it's an NMU
or not.
> I'm interested in some consensus about this, because I'm in the NM
> queue, and I sometimes do NMU's via my sponsor. I want to know wether
> continuing that is appropriate or not.
If the sponsor cares as he should care for every sponsored package, plus
the extra care he should take for any NMU, I see no problem; and I've
also sponsored such NMU's IIRC (although they probably where all with
maintainer's approval).
> Obviously, if person D has blind faith in person C, and simply uploads
> the NMU package without verification, that would be bad sponsoring. But
> that would be a discussion about appropriate sponsoring, not about the
> appropriateness of sponsored NMU's.
ACK.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: