On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:51:23 +0200 Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Yes, I've read the dev ref. I also had a chat in #debian-mentors yesterday > > regarding if doing a NMU would be the correct way of proceeding in this > > case as I haven't done one before nor have I been active with Debian > > related packaging any time recently. I got pointed towards PackageSalvaging > > [1], the MIA team and pinging the maintainer once more. That's why in > > concluded it wouldn't hurt to ask here before taking any futher actions. > > Concluding from this bug alone that the maintainer is MIA is IMHO a bit > hasty. This bug received a response last year on the same day that I > filed the bug. As the bug was, at that time, only severity normal, I'm > not surprised that it hasn't been fixed, even though it was pending all > the time. I only raised the severity one week ago. I am *assuming* you > inspected the lack of response from him on the bugs in the logrotate > package. I suggest you mention something like that explicitly next time > (and please confirm if I was rightly assuming). I haven't contacted MIA and I don't have any intent on trying to hijack this (or any other) package. That's why I try to ask first before taking any action so that there's no misunderstandings. I had some suspicions that the maintainer may have become inactive when the discussion in bug #881811 [3] didn't result in any kind of reaction. After several months had past and this bug was still open, I tried to contact him a little over a week ago (before the severity change) offering help but haven't so far received a reply or a bounce. Due to the severity change, I spent some time learning how the packaging had been handled to see if there was some reason why the changes already in Salsa hadn't been uploaded, but couldn't find anything obvious. I couldn't either find any activity after September 2018 from those locations that do appear to provide such information ([4] [5] [6]). So yes, I'm aware that's he is also the maintainer of the logrotate package. > > As for the NMU, the only thing that isn't fully clear after reading the > > documentation is the handling of the DELAYED queue when using > > mentors.debian.net and the behaviour of nmudiff in that situation. Invoking > > nmudiff with --non-dd (which is mention in the --help output but not on the > > man page) results in a mail template that doesn't mention the delay > > anywhere. On the other hand, the template suggested by mentors.debian.net > > [2] looks more complete/verbose but isn't as clear that the diff file > > created by nmudiff/debdiff should also be attached for NMUs. Either way, is > > the lack of 'delay' something I'd need to worry about in this phase? > > It's the sponsor that has to upload to the DELAYED queue, so it's not > something that you control as the sponsee, I suggest you explicitly > mention it to your sponsor if you want the NMU to go through DELAYED > (although your sponsor should be aware of that anyways). That said, an > RC bug without response from the maintainer for a week is "entitled" > (quotes very much on purpose, as personally I put more time on all my > NMU uploads than the dev-ref suggests) to go straight into unstable. Thanks, that clarifies it. The RFS is in bug #932843 [7]. > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageSalvaging > > [2] https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/vnstat > > Paul > > PS: if --help has more info than the man page, I suggest you file a bug > about that if it doesn't exist already. Ok, I'll check that one too. [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881811 [4] https://salsa.debian.org/cgzones-guest [5] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=cgzones%40googlemail.com [6] https://contributors.debian.org/contributor/cgzones-guest@alioth/ [7] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932843 -Teemu
