Re: Proposal to update NMU section 5.11.1

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:54:41 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Section 5.11.1:
> > 
> > - Seems to imply that the only reason to do an NMU is for fixing bugs.  In 
> > interpreting this, it is not clear that a wishlist bug report of "please 
> > package the new upstream version" is something that could be valid to do an 
> > NMU for if the maintainer doesn't have time to do the work.
> 
> wishlist bugs are bugs, so they are covered.

While some wishlist requests can be clearly considered bugs, not all
of them are. The ones that are not, must get the same consideration
the style and cosmetic advice gives later on, because not doing so
inflicts the maintenance cost involved in carrying that delta around
onto the maintainer, the additional penalty of having to maintain this
further due to compatibility reasons if upstream does not accept that
code at all or in a different form, more so if the maintainer has for
example a 0-delta policy regarding upstream changes, etc.

regards,
guillem