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

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

On Friday 14 July 2006 03:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

True. Fixed as -0.1. Hm, it would be nice if lintian and linda warn if 
changelog claims Non-maintainer upload and the debian-revision value is not 
compliant with the conventions described in DevRef #5.11.2 (I know this 
document is not normative, but these rules are not against the Policy). I'll 
check their buglogs about such a wishlist otherwise will file a wishlist.

> > >   * 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...

Agreed. Fixed. There is no any chance for a comaintenance either, since the 
maintainer has been MIA for almost 1 year now and these RC-bugs are left 
unaddressed. Also seems he will not file a RFH, FRA, or O or ask for 
comaintenance in a reasonable timeframe. What if I want to hijack the package 
in favour of a better maintenance ? Well, I don't want to hijack for no good 
reasons, but the above described ones should be enough doing so.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: