On 14/08/08 at 09:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 07:55:02PM -0300, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> 
> > --- pkgs.dbk.orig   2008-08-13 16:44:44.000000000 -0600
> > +++ pkgs.dbk        2008-08-13 16:52:12.000000000 -0600
> > @@ -1892,6 +1892,14 @@
> >  might be helpful).
> >  </para>
> >  <para>
> > +While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any 
> > package-specific
> > +practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account 
> > reduces
> > +the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
> > +workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
> > +place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
> > +<ulink 
> > url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
> > +</para>
> > +<para>
> >  Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some 
> > time
> >  to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
> >  <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue).  Here are some delays that you could 
> > use as
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I would prefer a stronger wording, for example:
> 
>   While preparing the patch, pease take them into account the
>   package-specific practices documented by the maintainer in <ulink
>   
> url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
>   If your NMU is not an urgent matter, it is your responsability to
>   reduce the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the
>   normal package workflow.

I prefer Stefano's patch: it's more generic and covers stuff that could
be included in README.source in the future.

I applied Stefano's patch.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to