On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:31:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:28:02PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > I agree if the FTBFS comes from something the NMUer did, then yes, it is > > broken, but if it comes from general bad shape of the packages, then the > > responsability is to the package maintainer > > It's fine that you disagree. You're welcome to that. If you're going to > act on your opinions though -- and not take responsibility for fixing > the new bugs found when you upload NMUs -- then please do not NMU.
No problem, i take responsability of the packages i NMU, it is just that i don't think this attititude is correct. It only means that someone wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the package, will not do it because he don't want that responsaibility or more probably cannot assume it. So, he will not do it, and the possible FTBFS will not be discovered. As said, i don't do translations, so this doesn't touch me. > Again: this isn't about finding fault, it's about taking responsibility > for the quality of your NMUs, and making sure that *all* new problems > are resolved whether you caused them or not. I understand that for the aim of having sarge release on december 1, it is good for people to feel responsible for broken packages. I have another solution for this : if the package potentially FTBFS, the maintainer is either MIA or doesn't care, and nobody (be he NMUer or not) cares enough to fix the FTBFS, then just remove the package from the archive, or at least from sarge. No need to attribute responsabilities to people who possibly cannot fullfill them. Friendly, Sven Luther
