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

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:22:25AM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> >From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to
> fix RC bugs?  Not new upstream releases?

> On 7/14/06, George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:

> >Yet another attempt to find a sponsor for the shc package. Fixes several
> >RC-bugs as described by Frank Lichtenheld in #335278 buglog. Changes read:

> > shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low

This is the wrong version number for an NMU anyway.

> >   * add myself to uploaders


And this is totally inappropriate in an NMU.  NMUs should always be limited
to fixing bugs -- not making decisions that are exclusively the maintainer's
to make, like accepting comaintainers...

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: