On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:42:10AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 x...@debian.org

Sounds more like "close" to me...


> >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)
> 
> sure, this is why  only one NMU was done on your package :)

I'd guess the problem here is that continuing after this issue was flagged
certainly didn't send a message that a next NMU won't be done.


> >And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
> >to you about that.
> >
> >The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
> >yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
> >certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.
> 
> the copyright issues seems to be a policy violation, and this is what
> I'm mostly concerned about (I asked to make them RC, but you are of course
> free to disagree/downgrade)

Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent.  I don't see Nicholas pointing any
of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read
linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever
time-sentitive too.

Especially that the proposed new contents of debian/copyright is, IMHO,
containing far more inaccuracies than the old one did.


Meow!
-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.

Reply via email to