[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choice Hartmans1a

>>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> writes:

    gregor> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
    gregor> […]
    >> Developers may perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.

    gregor> This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around
    gregor> NMUs which are prevalent in Debian for at least ten years
    gregor> and are written down in DevRef 5.11.1.

I actually think that being able to NMU a package to add init system
support is entirely consistent with what debref says about NMUs.
It sounds like you're worried that I'm trying to lessen the categories
of things that can be NMUed.
Or that I'm tieing NMU to bug sevirity.
I'm not trying to do that either.
I'm trying to recommend a bug severity and emphasize that NMUs are

I'd appreciate help in achieving these goals without undermining the
text in debref.

The text does not currently tie the ability to NMU to bug severity.
Important bugs are valuable for among other reasons being suitable for
inclusion in a stable release update.

I think it is important to emphasize that these bugs can be NMUed in
this choice.  Since that is already consistent with the tradition you
cite, I'm not seeing the problem.  But if you can suggest language that
continues to emphasize that NMUs are appropriate in this situation
without doing damage to that tradition, I would greatly appreciate it.
I do not support removing the statement about NMUs under the grounds
that it is obvious.

Reply to: