Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le dimanche 17 septembre 2006 à 23:28 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : >> Sorry, too late... The bug is 12 days old, not one day... If the >> package would >> have been binNMUable, there would have been no need to upload a source >> NMU in >> the first place. I don't know why you would object this NMU unless you >> want to >> keep libtasn1-2 in the archive or don't want gnomeicu in etch? > > That bin-NMU bug was a normal bug until yesterday, the libtasn1-2 was > set as important. Which means there was no hurry to fix them. Somebody > changed the settings yesterday and you NMUed the same day, do you > consider that as a normal way of NMUing? Not waiting a day and not > contacting the maintainer first? > I object to the NMU because a NMU was not required and you didn't try to > contact the maintainer first which is not a nice way to act
The maintainer had already 12 days to say something in the bug report, I don't think you can count that as 1 day in no matter what mathematics!!! It would indeed be more polite to have asked beforehand, though I didn't spot that it was only RC for 1 day. Sorry about that. Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
