> But you're missing my point. Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right > to skip waiting, while a normal NMU does not? Why are they different? Why > does one let you circumvent the rules, for however noble a purpose? > > Binary-only and normal NMU's are the same thing, and if you can do a > binary-only NMU w/o waiting, you should be able to do a normal NMU w/o > waiting. And if you can do that, it follows you should, since a normal NMU > is better.
How will you feal, if i get one of your packages, make necessary patches for kernel-2.1 and glibc-2.1 and egcs to it and upload the package _with_ source (without asking you for permission) to master. And then you notice that this new source-package is broken on your system? binary-only MNU hits only one arch normal NMU hits possible all archs Another story: I patched a debian binary in february, forwarded the patch directly to the maintainer (not to the BTS) and uploaded this package as a binary-only MNU. This package (with the patch) is always not yet available, because the maintainer is very busy to make a new release. This is more then a 1/2 year ! Greetings, Hartmut PS: we talk no about two or three packages, porters means 100 or 200 packages :-) -- Hartmut Koptein EMail: Friedrich-van-Senden-Str. 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 26603 Aurich Tel.: +49-4941-10390 [EMAIL PROTECTED]