Re: PW#5-2: Maintainer's reaction on non-maintainer uploads
On Wed, Jan 21, 1998 at 03:59:03AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> dark@xs4all.nl (Richard Braakman) writes:
>
> > I think that any of these measures would be preferable to introducing
> > a new class of "fixed but open" bugs. Such bugs would interfere with
> > the attempts to use the bug system as an aid to release engineering,
>
> I don't think that there are so many nmus that this will become a
> problem. If it does become a problem, the easiest way to fix it would
> be to introduce a new severity which is lower even than wishlist for
> such "nmu-fixed" bugs. In the mean time, let's just write in the
> policy that nmus should not close bugs.
Well an "egrep" though availabe reveals about 135 NMUs. I think that most of
these should really be orphaned packages maintained by the QA group. This
has (at least) two advantages:
- bug reports go to the correct maintainer
- fixed bugs can be closed
My thinking seems to be correct as only 19 packages in total are maintained
by the qa-group (of which three have non-maintainer debian version
numbers!).
Perhaps we should suggest in the policy manual that if you do a NMU because
the maintainer seems to have disappeared (or isn't maintaining any longer),
you should see if the package should be orphaned. I'd suggest:
- emailing the maintainer
(wait a few days)
- post to devel to see if anyone knows anything
(wait a few days)
- release a NMU orphaning the package
The NMU mentioned above might be the one that fixes the bugs and/or updates
the package, it doesn't matter.
Adrian
email: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable
PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
Reply to: