On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:22:16AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > Quoting Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > binary-only uploads are clearly not the same. > > > > Ah ? And why ? Translation changes do not interfer with the source code > > > > of > > > > the package neither. > > > Hummm. Technically speaking, it does..?:-). With the source code of > > > the package....not with the upstream source code. > > New uploads will often trigger dormant bugs due to changes in the > > toolchain, too. If a package hasn't been uploaded since gcc-2.95 was > > current, a new upload built with gcc-3.3 will often not work even if the > > only source changes were some grammar corrections in a README file, eg. > > > > It's the NMUer's responsibility to fix these bugs too. > Err, FTBFS are RC bugs, most probably not of the responsability of the > NMUer.
No. They're most probably not through any *fault* of the NMUer. Nevertheless they are *still* the *responsibility* of the NMUer. > What would you say if instead of doing the NMU, the potential uploader > would will a FTBFS RC bug, and then make an NMU which fixes the > translation problem. Would it then still be his responsability to fix > the FTBFS bug ? I don't understand what you're saying. "would will a FTBFS RC bug" ? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?''
pgpadjh4whPQH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
