Bug#737493: RFS: iceowl-l10n/2.6.4-1 [NMU]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 2014-02-03 00:27, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jerome Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net>
> wrote:
>> Le 2014-02-03 00:08, Vincent Cheng a écrit :
>>> Have you tried contacting the current maintainer prior to
>>> sending out this RFS? If they haven't responded in a timely
>>> manner, please ping the MIA team and go through the MIA
>>> process; if they did reply and simply don't have time to update
>>> their package, please get them to say so on a public list / bug
>>> report and include a link to it in your RFS bug. Otherwise,
>>> this would be considered a hostile NMU.
>>
>> As the maintainer is listed in LowThresholdNmu, I thought it
>> would be okay to upload without delay. And I did leave a note in
>> bug #693150 announcing my intention and asking for feedback.
>> Could the upload still be considered as such in light of this?
>
> No, low threshold NMUs doesn't give an unconditional license to
> upload new upstream releases and/or make 0-day uploads (it's also
> never been formalized in Policy, so there aren't exactly any
> clear-cut rules as to what low threshold NMUs do allow...).
This release was published upstream on Dec. 11, 2013 [1], so it's not
exactly a 0-day upload. Also, the last release packaged by the
maintainer was only uploaded over a year ago.
I followed the conditions outlined on LowThresholdNmu, which is :
upload must fix one or more bugs and publishing without delay is
acceptable. I would expect the maintainers who signed-on to agree with
these terms, which seem clear enough to me. However I was not aware
that this whole procedure wasn't sanctioned by the Debian Policy, so
thanks for bringing that up.
> Again, please try to get in contact with the maintainer, and if
> that fails, get in touch with the MIA team to get this package
> orphaned so you can adopt it and properly maintain it.
I did contact the maintainer [2]. albeit only very shortly before
uploading. Again, my understanding of the conditions in
LowThresholdNmu was that this procedure was acceptable.
In any event, I understand that a NMU is an exceptional procedure and
that LowThresholdNmu rules are not universally recognized, so I will
close this RFS and allow more time for the maintainer to respond.
Thanks,
-- Jerome
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/thunderbird/addon/lightning/versions/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693150#96
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJS7zL6AAoJEK/ZGpI6kvtM8uUH/jlLgD924X8HZXh5ksAaQilE
qyKobvDNjU3uGdkerN4cqWKmRJSxmJd9Gi/TKuhNLAvtwnLj1RI0E09O7IKd4sV1
DWb6jGhDsNV1jzurYb+cE7wFl812ZelIn2BhcIZDlAXRJhUUVdYh3lRBozJCLGdv
IedJXcejuaDd9HuV3Eu7Wwy9Clj1cWboadM064WcU//WB1iysJ0bOrCKPytJVzk/
l+dvbGGKpHYEj12fEqOm2TJbw4YlsDL3/kh911OAGVMFz+/mUYpsI6/0kgNAwwK3
FZWOpOwy1ceGf3rIzy/C0TbnhWPbaKlKtPHHB1Wrxyiwl/lxKE3V52LrpeQe8R8=
=Q9Dd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: