Re: Requests for sponsors to upload NMUs
Sune Vuorela wrote:
...<snip>...
the maintainer is MIA and the package can be orphaned beforehand, fine
(but then it's no longer an NMU, it's a QA upload). Changing a SONAME is
*not* acceptable in an NMU without permission from the maintainer. It is
an especially bad idea when doing NMU's as part of a release bug
You seem to be living in perfect-world where maintainers are always
reachable.
Or perhaps he had an experience similar to mine where the
maintainer was available but no attempt was made to contact.
MIA-process && orphaning is too slow for bugfixing. This isn't about
anything else than bugfixing.
So, in this case you claim it is only about "bugfixing." While
you may want to look at it in that light, I am sure there are
others who see it differently. Going back to a thread I previously
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/10/msg00229.html)
participated in, I will again emphasize the need for communication.
If the maintainer is truly MIA, that is a bigger issue than any
single bug. Others have made this argument that we should
focus on a bug to justify a NMU (even when it goes against
established practice or breaks the rules). We may not live in a
"perfect-world", but we should strive to improve our processes
to handle these situations. It does not help if individual DDs
promote their pet theories to those who agree with them.
Richard
P.S. In case it is not obvious, I am not directing my comments to
any specific individual or incident. I explicitly reject this narrow
bug fix only mindset. I want to promote and improve the entire
Debian system where communication is critical. While a NMU
is easy to focus on (and acceptable as our documentation
shows ;-), we still need to look at the overall consequences and
effects.
Reply to: