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]