Hi Lucas, [Though not very active, I'm subscribed to QA ;-)] On Sun, 23 May 2010 19:22:07 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > On 23/05/10 at 12:32 +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:40:44 +0200 > > Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > > > > > > This one is not even fixing a serious bug: > > > > > > So? NMUs are not only for serious bugs. > > > > Then, as Ana said, the developers reference should be changed because > > that's just the opposite of the first point in 5.11.1 "When and how to > > do an NMU": «Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or > > changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.» > > I think that this should be read as "NMUIng when your only changes are > cosmetic issues is discouraged". If you are doing an NMU anyway (to fix > a real bug), I don't think that it should be discouraged to fix other > small issues at the same time, if those changes are reasonable. At this moment those small issues (if we take the original posting examples) are not issues at all but packaging preferences and lintian I/W tags (most of them). While is perfect to have them cleared, I think a lot of active maintainers would complain if you change that when fixing a bug in NMU, because that's not the point of a NMU. Only inactive don't because they don't really care about the package. That should be telling them it's the hour of taking care or orphaning the package, and so they should be informed. The NMU way, even if done correctly, only hides the real problem here. regards, -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «You single-handedly fought your way into this hopeless mess.»
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature