[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: package ownership in Debian

On 10729 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:

>> Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs >=3Dnormal. Which
>> means - upload and mail to BTS at the same time.
> Would that mean we get BTS+NMU tennis instead of BTS tennis,
> where differences of opinion over what is a serious bug result
> in 0-day NMUs as well as BTS reopens?

I didnt say serious, I said normal and i said have it forever.
If someone doesnt agree with a fix it should come up with something

> The key trouble is that non-maintainers are often not familiar
> with the history of the package and the difficult decisions which
> have been taken and some don't bother to follow the references
> given in the changelog.  Meanwhile, there's some pressure not
> to make the debian dir so verbose it includes transcripts of
> key discussions.

If you have a bug that shouldnt get fixed for some reason - state it in
the bug. You know, you can mail this BTS thing and it will show up
(after some time until the worms sorted it right :) ).

> I'm not sure what the solution is, but 0-day always seems a big
> step backwards for Quality Control.  More co-maints seems a
> better idea as a step forwards.

I disagree. There are packages bad maintained with teams and without
teams. Its not that forcing team maintenance gets you anything better by

bye Joerg
> Or write yourself a DFSG-free replacement for that piece of software.
Using the copy and paste method from the old source, obscured by 
irrelevant changes.

Attachment: pgpeDb7JUVnfp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: