* Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 11:17:09 CEST]: > Twas brillig at 10:58:59 17.09.2007 UTC+02 when Gerfried Fuchs did gyre and > gimble: > > GF> Why do you call "Properly"? This sounds like the NMU I did wasn't > proper > GF> - whereas the diff clearly shows that there is no difference between the > GF> NMU and the new upstream release. > > Calm down a bit. "Properly" just means "as upstream does". I'd change > changelog > entry in next upload if you want to.
Well, upstream did it the same way as was done already by the NMU, but writing properly there made it sound like the NMU didn't do it properly, which is clearly wrong. > GF> Thanks for making it sound that my NMU wasn't proper, and thanks for not > GF> having cared about this RC bugs before but now claiming you did care for > it > GF> "properly"... > > Sponsorship introduces delays, know ya? I had the identical package, but it > was > stuck at my sponsor, so you've been first. It's not like you didn't had the chance to tag it pending or write something to the bugreport about that, know ya? Given that there was no noticable effort by you going on I had every right to do the NMU. > Anyway, I did not get bug from saying "NMU" from you with NMU patch applied, > as > NMU procedure *dictates*, so I did not care to check the changes you > introduce, > as upstream fixed them in it's own way. Erm, then you are clearly not following the bugreports of your package, because it is there, sent to #439622: <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=21;bug=439622> If you missed it, I'm sorry for that, but I *did* attached it to the bugreport. Yes, the diff was done in reverse, but that shouldn't be a real problem, is it? So long, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
