On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Matt Taggart wrote: > James Troup writes... > > > Grr, guys please don't do this. That's not what binary-only NMUs are > > for. If you need to make changes to the source, then do a sourceful > > NMU. As porters you have a lot more leeway WRT permission to do > > sourceful NMUs (i.e. you don't necessarily have to ask permission, > > wait silly amounts of time etc.). > > I suspect the majority of the cases where this is occurring is when > config.{sub,guess} needs updating for hppa. When we encounter those we file > a bug, update those files to the newest upstream version and do a binary-hppa > upload. We figured that there was no reason to force the other archs to > recompile and everyone to download the new package, etc. At some point we'll > need to go back and review all those bugs to make sure they have been dealt > with. > > What do you think? Would a source-NMU be better? >...
I'd suggest to send a RC bug that contains something like a "when you make no upload and don't disagree I'll do a (source) NMU in one week". > Thanks, cu Adrian -- A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi