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 <email@example.com> 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.