Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
On Mon, 26 May 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is not sustainable on the archive as a whole.
> Could you elaborate? It certainly has been my understanding
> that if you NMU a package, you are responsible for any breakage you
> cause .
Check how we handled the switch to gcc4.3, a few people NMUed dozens of
package each and while they assume responsibility for breakage that they
cause they certainly didn't follow those packages in details after their
They probably looked after FTFBS or other RC bugs because they appear
on their QA page (http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=<login>) but
they probably didn't subscribe to the PTS of those packages and didn't
handle bug reports as if they were the maintainer.
And until we have only active maintainers, it's not reasonable to
be more demanding than that. I keep an eye on RC bugs in packages that I
NMUed, but that's about it.
> the maintainer does. However, I think it is also unsustainable to give
> the impression that drive by NMU's are just fine, and it is OK to leave
> a train of wrecked packages in your wake.
People who do lots of NMU do not let a train of wrecked packages behind
them. They would be quickly notified to stop... (by the maintainers, by
the RM, by other DD who discover the problem and report it to the BTS)
> This comes back to the principle that one is responsible for
> what one uploads into the archive; if one's upload causes bugs, one is
> responsible for taking care of the bugs.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :