On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything > > wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting > > time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons are needed for it. > > I find your argumentation rather weak, but to be honest I also don't really > care enough about this whole subject to discuss it further. > > If anybody is ever going to NMU D-I components to DELAYED, I expect he will > get a direct reply with a request to remove his upload from the queue, but > we'll deal with that when it happens. The point of my mail was: D-I has a > sufficiently actively team, there should be no need ever to NMU any of its > packages. Doing so is indeed a waste of time. Clearly there are cases where NMUs are inappropriate. The DEP is currently missing language to make that point clear (at least in my reading of it) perhaps it needs a final clause along the lines of: This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly. If you NMU when it is clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a more timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations of this DEP, or if you do something else that assumes that this is an NMUers charter and that a lawyerly interpretation of some subclause can be used to justify some abusive action, be warned, there is no protection for you here. You should always be prepared to defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits. Cheers, Phil.
Description: Digital signature