Paul Slootman wrote:
> They are currently "necessary" because of the mandatory waiting period
> between filing a bug and doing a "normal" NMU (i.e. with source).
There's that argument again.
Binary NMU's aren't a recognized method of uploading stuff to debian,
according to the policy manual, pac
On Thu 22 Oct 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If policy is changed that for portability issues immediate "normal"
> > NMUs are permitted, then I'd have no problem in doing this.
>
> Well! I have no problem getting policy changed to include this
> cla
> Hmm, I usually keep my current version of the sources of my package
> locally. It's a small effort to implement any diffs submitted to the
> BTS to my development version in any case. So, I don't think that "a
> sourceful NMU takes away the sources under his feet" is applicable.
But many people
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They are currently "necessary" because of the mandatory waiting
> period between filing a bug and doing a "normal" NMU (i.e. with
> source). It's not manageable for porters who do dozens if not
> hunderds of packages to keep track of all of this.
> If p
On Thu 22 Oct 1998, Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > If policy is changed that for portability issues immediate "normal"
> > NMUs are permitted, then I'd have no problem in doing this. The
> > point is that currently it is _not_ policy, and I'd invoke the wrath
> > of those developers who don't immediatel
> If policy is changed that for portability issues immediate "normal"
> NMUs are permitted, then I'd have no problem in doing this. The
> point is that currently it is _not_ policy, and I'd invoke the wrath
> of those developers who don't immediately understand the problem,
> and who subsequently
> Finally, I'd like to hear for any listening porters (Roman?) about
> why binary-only NMUs are a necessary part of their porting workflow.
> I understand they are simply a lot faster to produce in cases where
> minor, interactive style hacking is required on a package.
First to clear up a misund
On Thu 22 Oct 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> Finally, I'd like to hear for any listening porters (Roman?) about why
Paul OK? :-)
> binary-only NMUs are a necessary part of their porting workflow. I
> understand they are simply a lot faster to produce in cases where
> minor, interactive style h
Well, the discussion is raging on. Let me try to summarize, since I'm
the poor schlub who has to try to document all this in the Developer's
Reference.
First off, full compliance with the licensing of packages under GPL
and MPL and other "keep source available" licenses (which BTW
constitutes th
9 matches
Mail list logo
