Re: status update: GNUstep library transition
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 11:43 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Please exercise more caution when sponsoring NMUs prepared by the submitters
> > of bugs. It's clear that you didn't verify this bug yourself before
> > uploading, and the most this upload has done is to delay the gnustep
> > transition.
>
> I am very sorry about that and I promise that I will be more careful in
> the future. I initially uploaded this NMU to the delayed queue, to
> satisfy the NMU policy. But then I thought a second time[1], and due to
> the package being already NMU'ed by him I thought he knows what he does.
> (The previous NMU was also related to the GNUstep transition.) I.e. I
> thought that's a simple transition problem where the dependencies need
> to be adjusted, which I did not want to delay.
>
> So I wanted to speed up a transition without looking it up properly and
> ignored the NMU rules... Oh well... I could only repeat that I am sorry.
I was wrong preparing and requesting an upload for an NMU for a bug that
was only one day old. The package should indeed have been uploaded to
DELAYED, but I didn't explicitly ask Philipp to do this. As I already
explained to Gürkan Sengün who has an updated package of steptalk in NEW
(without O or ITA bug against wnpp), I had several reasons to prepare
the package: I prepared the previous NMU, the maintainer is unresponsive
for quite a wile. On my system at last the package in unstable failed to
build due to missing deps.
So, my apologies as well. We'll try to make sure it will not happen
again.
Kind regards,
Adriaan Peeters
Reply to: