dann frazier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 06:32:36PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:29:06PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:17:49PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: >>> Since this is an RC bug, I've gone ahead and uploaded an NMU. This >>> qualifies as a 0-day NMU, but since this bug has just been submitted >>> and the maintainer is not on the LowThresholdNMU list, I've elected to >>> upload to DELAYED/7-day instead. Patch is attached. >> I am slightly offended by the rush of a "likely" problem here, doing it >> within not even an hour, especially since it was also you who reported >> the problem but originally calling it a likely problem which means one >> should rather check if it's a real one. > > It is *absolutely* a problem that this package will FTBFS on ia64 due > to a buildd hook to fail such builds. This is the reason for the > seriousness and the NMU (which is in DELAYED/7-day, not in incoming). > >> This feels much more like anything but a hijack. Feel free to upload >> with setting yourself as Maintainer too if you feel so strongly about >> it. You should know better than thinking NMUs are an attack. Especially NMUs for RC and RG bugs are normally only meant to help the maintainer in getting their package in a better shape. > I thought it polite to do a delayed upload instead of a 0-day NMU, > sorry you feel differently. Please don't take it as an attack, hijack, > etc - I just preferred to do it this way than to wait a week and do a > 0-day NMU because it saves time for me to do it all at once, and the > end result is the same: you can wait a week for it to be > automatically fixed, or upload an MU instead. Indeed, this is not something that is done a lot, but it is a valid interpretation of the 0-day NMU rules. Please don't be offended and feel free to accept the NMU or upload an MU fixing the issue yourself. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
