Re: RFS: libvdpau (updated package)
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:58:23 +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi again,
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure you are aware of . The second item of "Before doing an NMU" states:
> > > "Did you give enough time to the maintainer?" Unless I got something wrong,
> > > there weren't more than a few hours between the bug report and the RFS. You'll
> > > surely understand that this wouldn't even allow people living in different time
> > > zones to _notice_ your bug report.
> > Michael,
> > Thanks for your feedback. Does the "Did you give enough time to the
> > maintainer" question have as much relevance toward the end of the freeze
> > when timely RC bug fixes are paramount? Also, I wonder if those NMU
> > guidelines are a bit antiquated nowadays since there is much broader
> > acceptance of NMUs by maintainers? I can appreciate the "make sure you
> > don't break it" and "send the diff to the bug report" guidelines, but
> > is it really necessary to spend so much effort to contact the
> > maintainer (bullets 2, 4, and 5)?
> > Also, there is the "Upload fixing only release-critical and important
> > bugs: 5 days" guideline which already gives the maintainer plenty of
> > time to react.
> > Also, there is the "low threshold nmu list", which I had read some
> > discussion where there was a push to make all packages "low
> > threshold". Not sure if that's gone anywhere though.
> In my opinion, this case of yours has nothing whatsover got to do with NMUs, let
> alone the freeze. Technically, your approach is probably covered by policy,
> freeze, etc. But Debian is not a system of robots.
> I think this case is rather a matter of being polite. The BTS records a response
> from one of the maintainers within 2:37 hours. You could of course try to
> contact one of the maintainers on IRC, but other than that there's little chance
> you get a response in a project as global as Debian in less time.
OK, I'm going down the "let the maintainer do his thing" road right now
since that is happening, but I don't see the harm from checking both
roads first (the other road being "fix it myself and get a sponsor").
If the end goal is fixing bugs and getting the release out, I don't see
how starting an RFS to achieve that goal was an impolite thing to do.
In all actuality, any potential wasted time was stopped by the
maintainer responding. The rest of the discussion has been my
pondering of the current system and social norms, and whether those
could be improved.