On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Gerrit Pape wrote: > clone 298967 -1 > reassign -1 bglibs > retitle -1 bglibs: NMU is not for sarge > close 298967 > quit > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:18:17AM -0600, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > Hi Micah, while I appreciate your efforts, this NMU unfortunately was > > > unnecessary, the current bglibs packages in sarge are fine. > > I should've noted in the NMU that I did this because of the BSP this > > weekend, we are trying to resolve as many RC bugs as possible. I > > suspected that since you hadn't replied yet, that this report was most > > probably true. But I see now that it is not! > > Ok, as I said I appreciate your efforts. From a maintainer's point of > view though, I think a two days old bug on an actively maintained > package doesn't warrant a zero-day NMU that replaces the upstream > source.
I understand that from a maintainer's point of view, in many cases the bugs we were targetting at the BSP were 5 days old, it is impossible for me to acertain at this late of date why bglibs was identified as a target when it was only a couple days old. However, from the release manager's point of view, the current policy is that 0-day NMUs to fix RC bugs are allowed and encouraged until release. Every day the release manager is deciding not to allow certain packages into testing because of RC bugs, so the quicker that these bugs are dealt with, the better. If we waited for every maintainer to get around to fixing their RC bugs, then there would never be a release. So, I agree with you -- this should'nt have been a target, although it would have been a couple days later, but this is only a special case scenario due to the ramp-up towards freeze for release. > > > Peter, the file /usr/share/doc/bglibs-doc/latex/Helvetica.ttf in the > > > bglibs-doc package is from the GPL upstream tarball. The font actually > > > is generated by the doxygen package, which Debian also distributes under > > > the GPL. > > > > If this is true, then my NMU should be knocked out and this bug should > > be closed, no? > > Shouldn't you know when doing the upload? Please first check whether a Shouldn't I know what? > bug report actually reports a real bug. Unfortunately ``knowcking out'' To the best of my knowledge, the bug report did represent a genuine bug, and as I have indicated a number of times, I apologize for being wrong about that. > the NMU isn't possibly AFAIK, you replaced the package source in the You can replace the package source with another upload, replacing the NMU with the new one. > Debian archive. IMO you should either have contacted me before, or > used an urgency medium, and upload the NMU to a some-day delay queue; > it's the same effect to the package, but gives the maintainer some time > to re-act. Now I have to deal with the broken upstream source in Debian > sid. I asked during the BSP if a delay queue was protocol and was told that normally yes this is the procedure, but right now this is not. Obviously this is the right way to do it and due to the improper nature of the bug, this situation was incurred, and I apologize for the problems it has caused. micah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
