Bug#706514: RFS: dcraw/9.17-1
Hi Anton,
Problem is, I don't understand how much these rules apply to me, since
the actual upload to unstable will not be done by me. That case is
not covered by the text.
It does not matter, who "physically" uploads the package e.g. sponsors it.
In this case you are the author of changes.
Thanks, that fills a long-standing gap in my knowledge.
But then it is a NMU (unless I become maintainer first), and should have
a NMU number?
I would upload it into, for example,
14-DAY queue, if:
1) you will continue to maintain it;
2) original maintainer will not react.
3) the package technically be OK.
I start to feel a little like the famous donkey with the carot
held in front. Everytime I do something to improve the package
there are new requirements that pop up.
I usually upload the package, even there are some minor problems,
which would be good to fix. But from my point of view, the current
status of the package is not enough good to be uploaded in Debian.
The package is way better than the current one in Debian. Please
recall that I did not start from scratch, but from the package
currently in stable/testing/unstable. Is there a rule in Debian saying
that improving one thing in a package can only be done when all
other known problems are fixed at the same time as well?
Please, fix "patch-issues". Patch should be minimal and clear. if you do
not understand, what the patch does - just remove it and check the
package functionality. I pointed already the problems with .badpixels
and gpg_key file.
See above. The actual maintainer added those files to the package,
and I don't really know what they do. But just because _I_ don't
know what they do that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose.
That's why I kept them in.
Also it is very important to decide, whether you want to (co)-maintain
the package. If not - who will fix the possible problems after the uploading
of new version?
That's why my original intention was to change the package only minimally,
and _only_ exchange the single source file with a newer one. But somehow
I got coerced into rewriting the entire package...
Cheers,
Oliver
@Steve, please, clarify, whether you want to maintain the package further.
Cheers,
Anton
Reply to: