On Monday 31 July 2006 18:43, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:40:54 -0300, "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On 7/31/06, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:00:21 +0000, "Gustavo Franco" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > The packages that aren't under group maintenance and will never be, > >> > needs more not so strict NMU rules. > >> > >> Why? > > > > Due to the "my stuff, don't touch that!" current approach, but (again) > > this is just IMHO. > > I disagree with that. (IMHO) I think that the "my stuff" approach has > more to do with maintainer attitude than with NMU rules. I don't think > that loosening the NMU rules will decrease the maintainers' > possessiveness. The current rules already authorized all DDs to make > NMUs, if you follow the procedures. And if you follow the current NMU > rules, then the entire process will take, what, a couple of weeks?
IMHO the maintainer(s) could mention their wishes wrt to NMU and any particular package in debian/copyright, right after This package was debianized by ... When needed NMU is appreciated/forbidden/whatever That will help to avoid some confusion, when people are in doubt wrt "to NMU or not to NMU". -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
