Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
...<snip>...
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 idea).+} 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. Richard