Re: Requests for sponsors to upload NMUs
On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, fix known bugs but don't delay the RC bugs just to fix less
> important ones. That's perverse.
Do two uploads ;) - one to "now" and one to delayed.
> All I'm saying here is that sponsors should not expect NMUs to fix the
> full range of issues that would normally be essential to fix for an
> upload to NEW or for an upload of a package already maintained by the
> person requesting sponsorship.
I of course agree on this. But I also think that if someone does this
extra things, he should not be asked to undo them before making the NMU.
When I am NMU'ing something filled with crack and awfulness, I have a
hard time not fixing these as well, especially if it is easy fixable.
> lintian errors and warnings are explicitly *off-topic* for an NMU,
> unless directly related to the RC bug.
No. changing -make clean to [ ! -f Makefile ] || make clean for example
would in my opinion be fully acceptable.
(This is not stylistic changes, but nice bugfixes)
> Can we agree that these tasks should *not* be done in an NMU *unless*
> directly related to the RC bug? :
(or after communication with maintainer)
> 1. SONAME changes merely to shut up lintian - i.e. where the RC bug has
> no need to change the SONAME.
> 2. removing commented out lines in debian/rules
> 3. Implementing dpatch or quilt for a package that does not use it
> 4. tidying up manpages
> 5. Changing the build system to/from CDBS/dpkg/dbs/foo
> 6. other lintian errors or warnings
> lintian errors and comments in debian/rules are *not* bugs. I'm not
> against fixing bugs that have been properly filed in the BTS and which
Lintian errors are often bugs.
> There is a big difference between bug-fixing and QA. NMUs are for fixing
> bugs, not stylistic changes within packages or keeping up with lintian.
"keeping up with lintian" - hah.
- this time it was 462001