* Frank Küster: > I don't know Florians opinion about this, and he has the saying here. > But if you ask me, unless there's a particular reason why you choose > this bug (which I didn't read so far), I think it is a bad example for > your famous talk. NMU work should be concentrated on RC bugs which are > hard to fix or which have not been addressed properly in the past. A > bug that is two days old and already lead to a fruitful discussion > between the submitter and the maintainer does not need to be fixed in an > NMU.
I slightly puzzled by Martin's approach, too. The problem with this bug is that by its nature, its resolution *requires* a new configuration file, and therefore defining some syntax for it. I certainly don't object to anyone providing suggestions or patches, but I don't see why this has to lead to something which inherently is an unreviewed NMU. Frankly, I'm somewhat pissed that I've spent a couple of minutes on writing this message, instead of working on the bug itself.
