Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
On Mon, 26 May 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Well, I *do* think in this situation, I am NOT to EVER NMU any of that
> maintainer's packages again, unless I go through one of the formal
> processes to override him.
This is an individual decision and doesn't need to be codified in any way.
(in particular when the situation described involves so many "if")
> If you need an example, we've had NMUs breaking essential packages. And
> I *think* we have had far more than an acceptable number of "fire and
> forget" NMUs happening too (but I don't have the hard data to back it
> Once you NMU, you are that package's daddy for *ALL* bugs that could
> even remotely be related to your NMU, until its maintainer shows
> up again... People who can't deal with that, must not NMU. Send the
> patch to the BTS instead.
This is not sustainable on the archive as a whole.
It's always best top have an active developer for the most important
packages so that DD who are not familiar with the code don't have to
NMU at all... but in general, there's no need to go to that extreme route
of saying that once NMUed you're the maintainer until the maintainer comes
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :