Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:42:10AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 xnox@debian.org
Sounds more like "close" to me...
> >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)
>
> sure, this is why only one NMU was done on your package :)
I'd guess the problem here is that continuing after this issue was flagged
certainly didn't send a message that a next NMU won't be done.
> >And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
> >to you about that.
> >
> >The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
> >yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
> >certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.
>
> the copyright issues seems to be a policy violation, and this is what
> I'm mostly concerned about (I asked to make them RC, but you are of course
> free to disagree/downgrade)
Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent. I don't see Nicholas pointing any
of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever
time-sentitive too.
Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO,
containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did.
Meow!
--
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
Reply to: