* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Quoting Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > I, for sure, cannot hijack any package for which nothing has been done > > > for translation related bugs. I would quickly end up with dozens of > > > packages I'm responsible for, the majority of which I'm perfectly > > > unable to maintain. > > > > If you can't maintain the package then you shouldn't be NMU'ing it. > > It's real simple, learn that. > > Wow....There's a strong difference between maintaining a package, > which means following it along its entire life and making one single > fix for a very specific thing.
Except what you don't realize is that one should never, ever, ever just
NMU and then forget about the package. If you do an NMU then you need
to make sure it worked, follow the package and make sure there aren't
problems with it and follow up with the maintainer on the bugs. I don't
care what you change in the package, if you NMU then you need to do that
at a *minimum*, just as if you were the maintainer. It's not until the
official maintainer incorporates the NMU changes and closes the bugs
that the NMU'er can forget about it.
> I'm perfectly able to do the changes required by the NMU i send,
> mostly po-debconf switches or translation incormoration. But, if a bug
> related to something completely different in the package occurs, then
> I cannot fix it be cause I'm not invloved in the given software.
Then you shouldn't be doing an NMU on it. When you NMU something you
take responsibility for it temporairly until the maintainer gets back.
> For what I read, it is not required to be able to maintain everything
> for a given package for being able to NMU it. It is just required to
> be able to fix possible introduced bugs....
Then what you read is wrong.
> I *CAN* maintain.....what I change. So my reading of our policy tells
> me that it's OK to NMU.
Then it's wrong or your interpretation is. You shouldn't be doing NMU's
unless you can actually handle problems in the package. This would be
one reason why you shouldn't be NMU'ing for wishlist bugs and instead
should be NMU'ing for RC bugs.
> They're not complex at all. Most of the time (for russian
> translations), it is just required to know how to uudecode file and
> how should a debconf translation be named... :-)
A patch would probably still be easier, but whatever.
> This is precisely what's currently happening.. :-)
Glad to hear it, perhaps some day you will, though personally I hope to
hell you never manage to get it considered an RC bug, and I'll work to
make sure that doesn't happen.
Stephen
pgpqrkpuN5lwz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
