On 29 Mar 2016 08:10, "Alexander Wirt" <formo...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > On 29 March 2016 at 04:11, Alexander Wirt <formo...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > > > >> On 5 March 2016 at 19:54, Sam Morris <s...@robots.org.uk> wrote: > > >> > severity 796611 grave > > >> > thanks > > >> > > > >> > This is currently causing my system to boot without networking. I am > > >> > increasing the severity since other (rather important!) packages are > > >> > affected (I assume that I was just lucky until now). > > >> > > > >> > I'm currently using the attached unit file to work around the breakage. > > >> > It's the same as the one I sent in before, but with > > >> > WantedBy=sysinit.target as advised by Felipe Sateler in the thread > > >> > above. > > >> > > >> I have uploaded an nmu. I have made the unit call out to the init > > >> script, because it does more work than simply invoking ferm. > > >> > > >> Please find attached the debdiff > > > I find 0-day nmus highly intrusive. Stop that practise. > > > > Current convention as codified in the devref is to upload 0-days for > > RC bugs over 7 days old. This bug had been open without maintainer > > input for 6 months (with potential seriousness noted), and has been RC > > severity due to actual breakage for almost a month. I will not stop > > NMUing fixes for such bugs. > Especially if I just said a few minutes ago that I'll take care of it.
I uploaded a broken package, so I fix it ASAP. I did check you had not uploaded another one before doing so. Moreover, if you do a regular upload, your version will be higher number and thus my upload will not interfere with yours. There is absolutely no reason for me to not fix the bugs in my upload. Saludos
