Bug#689726: unblock: gcc-4.6-doc/4.6.3-1
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:11 -0400, root wrote:
> ,----
> | >
> | >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently,
> | >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA
> | >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission
> | >> interface (after I become a DM).
[...]
> | DMUA removed now.[2]
> `----
>
> Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now
He wasn't at the time I queried it, as his own mail above confirms.
> (2) the changelog
> says his *sponsor* added the DMUA field based working with him before,
> and (3) the packages have the field now, so is it really worth removing?
>
>(It's quite true that a control field is not a good way to do this, but
> that doesn't mean that it's completely unusable or useless!)
Actually, it *is* useless, or will be very soon - specifically in
exactly a month. See
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg00008.html
As of November 24th, its presence will serve no purpose.
> I propose that Guo put the DMUA back, then upload the revised versions
> of gcc-4.6-doc and gcc-4.7-doc *himself* rather than waiting for a
> sponsor to do it.
>
> p.s. Note that, technically, Guo didn't set me as Maintainer: I did;
> this should have been fairly obvious from the changelogs. (This was
> back before I essentially abandoned the project, partly in despair of
> getting gcc-doc-defaults to match gcc-defaults and partly for lack of
> feedback from potential sponsors.)
It wasn't at all obvious from the .changes file which was uploaded, i.e.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-4.6-doc/news/20121003T190008Z.html
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: