On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:42:10AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: owner -1 x...@debian.org
Sounds more like "close" to me... > >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =) > > sure, this is why only one NMU was done on your package :) I'd guess the problem here is that continuing after this issue was flagged certainly didn't send a message that a next NMU won't be done. > >And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond > >to you about that. > > > >The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you > >yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but > >certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package. > > the copyright issues seems to be a policy violation, and this is what > I'm mostly concerned about (I asked to make them RC, but you are of course > free to disagree/downgrade) Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent. I don't see Nicholas pointing any of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever time-sentitive too. Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO, containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did. Meow! -- An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
