Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or, alternatively, this was the only crappy NMU that was noticed while > quite a few others were made against ancient packages with inactive > maintainers who didn't notice or didn't care. I'm not terribly > interested in going through all the NMUs done and attempting to prove > this but I find it more likely than the possibility that only one poor > NMU was done during that period.
No, you're not alone; I got to clean up after an overly hasty NMU of fltk 1.0.x that switched to G++ 3.x without adding c102. (I must admit, however, the package was asking for trouble by neither forcing the right [older] compiler version nor even carrying a warning about the situation in the BTS.) Fortunately, I was able to react in time to keep that NMU from advancing beyond incoming. Nevertheless, I feel that the 0-day NMU period generally went quite well. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.