Bug#706514: RFS: dcraw/9.17-1
Hi Oliver,
i do not really have any motivation to discuss
"social" questions any more. You want to upload
a newer version without intend to maintain it. Right?
2013/7/18 Oliver Sander <sander@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>:
> 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?
Yes, but pay attention, NMU is only for critical bug-fixes. Not for
new versions or minor changes. See Debian Policy.
>> 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.
Sorry, my fault. i needed to say that first.
>
>>
>> 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?
No, but if you have an opportunity to fix that why not to do that?
It is not an urgent/security upload, when other changes are not desirable.
>> 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.
gpg_key is not in a current version of dcraw [1], [2]. .badpixels, as
i understand
should not be in a package either, as it is camera-specific file [3].
Why then should
it be in the package?
[1] http://sources.debian.net/src/dcraw/8.99-1
[2] http://packages.debian.org/de/sid/amd64/dcraw/filelist
[3] http://sources.debian.net/src/dcraw/8.99-1/.badpixels#L1
>> 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...
Making a minimal update can lead to an additional bugs, that is
why it should be done by the person, who can take a responsibility to
fix that later as well.
Sorry, if I enforced you to learn some more in Debian.
Cheers,
Anton
Reply to: