On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:48 +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Neither orange in the archive nor the result of your NMU even work for > > > zip files (with unzip installed) nor other files where it should work. > > > >>From strace, it looks like it is acually extracting stuff, but then > > > deletes the files instead of copying them to the output directory. It > > > would be nice if this could be fixed too. > > > > Paul, is that realistic for the NMU? This isn't an orphaned package, it > > isn't a hijack, this is an NMU to get orange into Lenny. > > Fixing an extra RC bug (package doesn't work) is realistic for an NMU, > even if it isn't filed in the BTS. *Is* there an unobtrusive fix for the problem, though? (And all the NMU advice I've seen requires that such a fix would need a bug filed in the BTS *with the patch*). Good NMU behaviour helps maintainers feel better about having NMUs done on their packages, helping comaintenance and the number of maintainers on the lowNMU list. AFAICT this 'bug' has existed for a couple of stable releases already with nobody filing a bug for it. Which alternative is best? 1. Let orange be removed from Lenny due to the existing RC bug, or 2. Let orange behave as it has in previous stable releases without fixing a bug that nobody seems to care about. ? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part