On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:31:22PM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > That also should be catched and warned, since an NMU done by a > > maintaner makes no sense. > > It's not very common, but it does: the NMU is prepared by another > non-DD and the package maintainer sponsors it. I remember a thread here not so long ago where it was pointed out that this isn't actually an NMU. The person doing an NMU fixes a bug in a package he doesn't own. For this, he must check if everything is ok, and do the upload. If this person is not a DD, then of course he cannot do the upload. So he needs a sponsor. This sponsor will need to check if everything is ok. That's exactly what he would do if he'd be doing the NMU himself. So a sponsored NMU is really a normal NMU (by the sponsor), with the specific situation that a patch for the fix was provided by someone else. If the sponsor is a maintainer, then it's just a normal fix provided by someone else. Also, the person sponsoring an upload doesn't need to be mentioned in either the changelog, or in the control file (it's usual that he is mentioned there, but there's no need for it). So it is very well possible (but probably not a good idea) to perform real NMU as a maintainer. A lintian/linda check wouldn't give a false positive there. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature