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

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:


I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you
can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that
you have the RIGHT to do it no matter what.

I made the following change to the DEP to address this: (wdiff format)

  When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
  between the current package and your NMU to the BTS.  If the bug you
  are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well.

  {+After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible
  problems that you might have introduced. You must monitor the package
  for a few weeks (subscribing to the package on the PTS is a good

  While there are no general rules, it's recommended to upload to the
  DELAYED queue with a delay of at least a few days. Here are some
  examples that you could use as default values:
I have the same concern about this language as I did when I explained
in October (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/10/msg00229.html)
that a person should follow the usual NMU rules. It may be a case where
agree to disagree, but our developers reference clearly states in section
5.11.1 (http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference) to "contact the
developer first, and act later."

I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will
prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. They
will claim that this was 'done by the book.' I am not oblivious to what
you (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/10/msg00547.html) may
find "painful" but, I still want to stress that we should strive to improve
communication when we can. You did not find consensus to adopt your
view back then, and I hope you will not use DEP1 to establish your
preference now.


Reply to: