On Friday 14 July 2006 03:52, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:22:25AM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote: > > >From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to > > > > fix RC bugs? Not new upstream releases? > > > > On 7/14/06, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Yet another attempt to find a sponsor for the shc package. Fixes several > > >RC-bugs as described by Frank Lichtenheld in #335278 buglog. Changes > > > read: > > > > > > shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low > > ^^^^^^^ > > This is the wrong version number for an NMU anyway.
True. Fixed as -0.1. Hm, it would be nice if lintian and linda warn if changelog claims Non-maintainer upload and the debian-revision value is not compliant with the conventions described in DevRef #5.11.2 (I know this document is not normative, but these rules are not against the Policy). I'll check their buglogs about such a wishlist otherwise will file a wishlist. > > > * add myself to uploaders > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And this is totally inappropriate in an NMU. NMUs should always be limited > to fixing bugs -- not making decisions that are exclusively the > maintainer's to make, like accepting comaintainers... Agreed. Fixed. There is no any chance for a comaintenance either, since the maintainer has been MIA for almost 1 year now and these RC-bugs are left unaddressed. Also seems he will not file a RFH, FRA, or O or ask for comaintenance in a reasonable timeframe. What if I want to hijack the package in favour of a better maintenance ? Well, I don't want to hijack for no good reasons, but the above described ones should be enough doing so. -- 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]
