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

Re: RFS: bfilter - unwarranted NMU



On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:39:26 +0000
Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:

> > So, I've decided to make a NMU. 
> 
> This package is not marked as lowNMU threshold, the bug is not
> relevant to the Lenny release, the package is not orphaned, there is
> no indication in the bug report that you have prepared an NMU and you
> have not waited for the maintainer to respond to the NMU request (as
> you haven't made it) - why are you considering an NMU?
> 
> You couldn't even be bothered to describe the problem within the bug
> report itself, merely linking to some other site that supposedly
> describes the 'issue'.
> 
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter
> > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian
> > unstable main contrib non-free
> > - dget 
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bfilter/bfilter_1.1.4-1.1.dsc
> > 
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> 
> I doubt that Vedran would be quite so pleased.
> 
> This is another upload to mentors that should be summarily removed for
> blatant disregard for Policy.

After looking at the referenced report about this bug, I'm not at all
convinced that this 'bug' even needs a fix - there is a clear workaround
documented in the thread linked from the bug report and people claiming
that the workaround works. Do you have evidence that the workaround
does not work?

As this is the only evidence provided in the bug report that the bug
even exists, I find it doubtful that the bug is worth fixing as
maintainer, let alone as an NMU. If this was my package, I'd probably
have replied but I wouldn't accept an NMU.

I'd be tempted to implement the workaround, thoroughly test it, feed
that back to the bug report and leave it at that. AFAICT the bug as
described is minor severity at best (I'd describe it as 'trivial'), the
appears to be a working fix that does not involve changing the package
(let alone an NMU) and there is no justification for any NMU.

I can't see any reason why you spent any time devising an NMU for such
a bug.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgp39r2aYg_E3.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: