Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU
- From: Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:24:14 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Frans Pop's message of "Sat\, 31 May 2008 18\:44\:22 +0200")
- References: <20080531102055.GA20626@xanadu.blop.info> <20080531152214.GA8808@kunpuu.plessy.org> <20080531160856.GB6590@xanadu.blop.info> <email@example.com>
Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
>> > team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
>> > instead." to the bullet list.
>> It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
>> might become unresponsive at the same time. I don't think that we
>> should special-case this.
> Yes, it probably does depend on the team. But several people have raised
> this point now, which probably means that it _is_ a real concern. When
> are you (the proposers of this DEP) going to start listening to your
> peers instead of dismissing their concerns?
Just for the record: I do think that packages maintained by the TeX Task
Force which I'm a member of should be NMU'ed just as any other package.
Even if we were not completely unresponsive, there where times when we
just responded to a RC bug: "This seems to be cause by $foo. If anyone
finds the time to verify it and NMU the package, go ahead". There might
be times where we won't do even that for a week. And we've already been
NMUed, with good effects on the quality of the distribution.
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)