Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm aware that person C is mentioned in the changelog of the package, > and not person D. I don't see a problem with that. Note that person B > can be a non-DD too, so there we have non-DD's in changelogs too.
When I'm person D, I usually ask person C to put a "upload sponsored by person D" line into the changelog, irrespective of whether it's an NMU or not. > I'm interested in some consensus about this, because I'm in the NM > queue, and I sometimes do NMU's via my sponsor. I want to know wether > continuing that is appropriate or not. If the sponsor cares as he should care for every sponsored package, plus the extra care he should take for any NMU, I see no problem; and I've also sponsored such NMU's IIRC (although they probably where all with maintainer's approval). > Obviously, if person D has blind faith in person C, and simply uploads > the NMU package without verification, that would be bad sponsoring. But > that would be a discussion about appropriate sponsoring, not about the > appropriateness of sponsored NMU's. ACK. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
