On 2008-03-05, Richard Hecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the maintainer is truly MIA, that is a bigger issue than any
> single bug. Others have made this argument that we should
Yes. but luckily, we can do both at the same time (fixing bugs and
figuring out wether a maintainer is MIA)
And
Sune Vuorela wrote:
..
the maintainer is MIA and the package can be orphaned beforehand, fine
(but then it's no longer an NMU, it's a QA upload). Changing a SONAME is
*not* acceptable in an NMU without permission from the maintainer. It is
an especially bad idea when doing NMU's as part of a
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:34:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:37 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
> > >
> > > That equates to a host
On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, fix known bugs but don't delay the RC bugs just to fix less
> important ones. That's perverse.
Do two uploads ;) - one to "now" and one to delayed.
> All I'm saying here is that sponsors should not expect NMUs to fix the
> full range
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:37 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
> >
> > That equates to a hostile hijacking. If the package is orphaned or if
> No it don't. it is just bugf
On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
>
> That equates to a hostile hijacking. If the package is orphaned or if
No it don't. it is just bugfixing. If it requires binary incompatible
changes to fix it, of c
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 10:57 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2008-03-04, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are sponsors going to start recommending changing SONAMEs in an NMU
> > next? Adding -dbg packages? Of course not, NMUs are different to typical
> > RFS activity.
>
> of course is c
On 2008-03-04, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are sponsors going to start recommending changing SONAMEs in an NMU
> next? Adding -dbg packages? Of course not, NMUs are different to typical
> RFS activity.
of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
> Havin
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 14:57 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:37 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rcalc/rcalc_0.5.0-1.3.dsc
> >
> > http://packages.q
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:37 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rcalc/rcalc_0.5.0-1.3.dsc
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rcalc/news/20080303T143226Z.html
>
> This NMU seems
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 21:31 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> I agree with William,
I'm glad that you agree with Neil Williams.
> I need to watch my Ps and Qs. However, in this
> case voc is MIA.
I don't think that Sam is MIA.
> So ideally I suppose what I should do is orphan the
> package a
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:37 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rcalc/rcalc_0.5.0-1.3.dsc
http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rcalc/news/20080303T143226Z.html
This NMU seems to introduce more changes than allowed via NMU. So I
agree with Neil Williams on hi
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> Note:
> "only fix bugs that are already filed to the BTS"
>
> The rest of the normal NMU rules still apply:
The following quote invites other fixes as well!
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-annou
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
So why are we doing this now? This is an NMU - minimal changes
scenario.
Well, maybe the world isn't *that* black and white. Remember, NMUs are
a way to help people fix their bugs, get their packages back into
shape, etc.
IA
On 04/03/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > So why are we doing this now? This is an NMU - minimal changes
> > scenario.
Well, maybe the world isn't *that* black and white. Remember, NMUs are
a way to help people fix their bugs, get their packages back into
shape, etc.
IANADD, etc., but I already got
> >
> > 2. Perhaps it would be better to have all of the source code
> > changes done through dpatch or quilt. I know this is an NMU and
> > being unobtrusive is important, but there are quite a few
> > upstream source code changes which I think would be better off
> > in a pat
16 matches
Mail list logo
