Alexandre, Thank you for reporting this bug. However, I do wish that you would properly follow procedures before doing an NMU! In particular, quoting from [1]:
* Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual. Is the bug so severe that it needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days? * Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS? If that didn't generate any feedback, it might also be a good idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means (email to the maintainer addresses or private email, IRC). * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact them? In general it should be considered preferable that maintainers take care of an issue themselves and that they are given the chance to review and correct your patch, because they can be expected to be more aware of potential issues which an NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time if the maintainer is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own. * When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The nmudiff script in the devscripts package might be helpful. * Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the DELAYED queue). For points 2 and 4 above, an e-mail or an MR on Salsa would suffice. Please keep this in mind going forward. What is done is done. Please at the very least file an MR for your exact changes on Salsa, so you do not create extra work for me. Thank you. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
