On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:49:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > The maintainer, at some point during a private conversation, even > > discouraged me to upload to *experimental* a new version of sysklogd > > fixing the issues I have prepared. That's why they ended up in my > > p.d.o page (they are not there anymore BTW). > > And you are putting the maintainers exhortations above the > quality of the distribution and users impacted by these bugs? Why is > that?
Because the developer can (and that's happened to me with previous NMUs) override the NMU just by uploading a new version (with minor cosmetic changes or fixing a bug, but not all those fixed by the NMU). I don't like fights in the upload queue between competing packages, I rather don't do that (again). If the developer does not plan on integrate or support the patches I produce for an NMU then the NMU is useless. It might not be if the package is orphaned (either by him or by the QA team) or the package gets hijacked later on and further work is based on the NMU, but many maintainers cling to their packages and would not allow that without a big flame^Wdebate in -devel [1] So, in the long run, I'm putting the distribution/users before my wishes to NMU. There's nothing worst for users than seeing "bugs" (some of those might be wishlist bugs, introducing new features) fixed by an NMU and later re-introduced by the main maintainer. Hope I clarified my standing on this issue. Regards Javier [1] We have seen instances of that in the past (for base and non-base packages), and the BTS of some base packages can probably shed more examples.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
