Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org): > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:33:48PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > I have just uploaded a NMU of gradm2, to fix its pending l10n > > issues (and, if needed, very minor QA issues). > > > Actually, with the maintainer's agreement, this consisted in the > > removal of the debconf note. > > Where did the maintainer agree to this? The only reply I see in the bug log > of #316834 is a *disagreement* with you. He agreed privately, sorry. Indeed, he basically mentioned me in private, when I pinged him about this bug, that he would do the upload. Then, later, when I asked again about the status of this bug, he mentioned me that he is short of time and if no upload pops up as of March 8th, I would just NMU the package. Indeed, I take this as a yes....:-) > > You also acknowledged that the second template (arguably the more important > one) belongs in NEWS.Debian, but your patch drops that template completely. > Granted, that note was never being /displayed/, but I don't think it's > correct to remove the text from the package completely when it could be left > in place for reference or (better) put in a NEWS.Debian. I can put it back in NEWS.Debian. I usually do so and apparently neglected to do it here. Probably because, as you said, the text was never being displayed. If you feel that's better, I can re-upload with that text back in NEWS.Debian. > > Anyway, I completely agree with you that these debconf notes are abuse of > debconf, but I still think this is out of scope for a freeze exception > without the maintainer's consent. Let's ping him. As I don't rely on <package>@ p.d.o
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature