* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference
which talks about your responsibilities when doing an NMU:
"Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced
with your NMU." Now, this works fine when the official maintainer is
going to follow up; it doesn't work worth a damn if the official
maintainer isn't taking care of the package at all anymore. Prior to
doing an NMU you tend to have a pretty good idea which is the case, or
you should at least.
> [...]
> > I've pointed out numerous times in this thread already why it's wrong to
> > believe that you can NMU a package without having any responsibility to
> > it afterwards, except maybe for the bits you changed. Having that kind
> > of an attitude is detrimental to the distribution as a whole.
> [...]
>
> I've loosely followed the thread but your only argument in favour of
> this statement seems to be that if people NMU'd to upgrade the
> translation there will be an delay in us recognizing the package missing
> a proper maintainer and orphaning or removing it.
>
> I do not think that argument holds, an unmaintained package will show
> other signs of negligance, and the qa people checking for unmaintained
> packages know how to differ between NMU and maintainer upload.
You've obviously not been paying very much attention at all then.
You should have a pretty good idea if the package is unmaintained or
not prior to doing an NMU. If it's not then you're uploading a package
which fixes some specific bug but leaves the package unmaintained.
That's irresponsible.
Stephen
pgp5hGTmX8DTM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
