On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:43:57 +0200 Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:32:47PM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > > So? NMUs are not only for serious bugs. > > > > Then, as Ana said, the developers reference should be changed because > > that's just the opposite of the first point in 5.11.1 "When and how to > > do an NMU": «Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or > > changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.» > > No, logics fails here. Between serious bugs and cosmetic issues there's > a huge range of possibilities. Completely agree. > For instance, NMU are allowed for important bugs (see the suggested > upload delays in devref §5.11.1) and fixing those does not qualify as > making cosmetic changes; well, at least it does not according to my own > interpretation of it. Exactly, but not for rewriting rules for dh (for example). For that one there's already a process: orphan + QA (or adopt), but not NMU. If the problem here is that orphaning takes too long then it should be shortened, not bypased using NMUs for QA uploads of non-orphaned packages. regards, -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «Afternoon very favorable for romance. Try a single person for a change.»
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
