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

Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> So I still consider this as crap. 

Why in the world are you even complaining about this? You're not the
maintainer of the package, and the NMU that was uploaded resolved the
problems correctly, even if it wasn't uploaded to DELAYED like it
should have been and $DEITY forbid, fixed some extra bugs as it went
> I'm just the sponsor and wasn't aware of this bug. First time I
> heard about the NMU was yesterday from the mentors system. I already
> ping the maintainer who was on holidays til this weekend. I would
> have reacted tomorrow.

If you're the sponsor of the package, it is your responsibility to
monitor the packagaes which you sponsor, *especially* for RC bugs and
to fix them when the maintainer which you are sponsoring for cannot or
does not.

If checking http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=formorer or
subscribing to the PTS for the packages you sponsor is too dificult,
then you should not be sponsoring them.

For example, instead of responding with vitriol to this attempt to
improve the quality of debian packages, you should be contacting
Sebastian Harl <sh@tokkee.org> and helping get #430933 resolved.

> He did fundamental changes to the package. This is not something
> that should ever be done in an nmu.

If updating config.{sub,guess}, not ignoring distclean rules, and
making a package binnmu safe is fundamental, something is clearly

While it's true that those sorts of things should not generally be
present in an NMU, those issues should have been caught before it was
uploaded in the first place; reminding Loïc of this politely would be
appropriate. Responding in this manner is not.

Don Armstrong

Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the
intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: