On 01/10/12 09:51, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I've had an NMU in the past for a package when I had a little less time, > but the change was sound and correct. So I didn't bother to make an > (empty) MU just to acknowledge it - I think that should be OK and not > 'punished' by taking it as a sign of an unmaintained package.
I think it'd be reasonable to expect a maintainer to follow-up to the BTS[1] in cases like this, just to say "that change looks fine" (and if the upload is still in DELAYED, give the non-maintainer a chance to reschedule it to the 0-day queue), e.g. <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607762#19>. I also think it's reasonable to expect that people checking whether a package is "effectively unmaintained" should check such bugs for activity, and treat the NMU as having been acknowledged (in the non-jargon sense of the word) if the maintainer replied. S [1] the same place the non-maintainer (should have) sent the nmudiff: the bug closed if there was only one, or the new "integrate changes from NMU 1.2-3" bug otherwise. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50696506.70...@debian.org
