# now that we're talking about an NMU, I might as well bump the # severity now severity 320413 serious stop
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:54:07AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: >> Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > texinfo (4.8-0.1) unstable; urgency=low >> > >> > * NMU >> >> I would prefer to indicate why we NMU, like "to adress bug #..) >> > > Also, the general principle about NMUs is to make as few changes as > possible to the package to fix the specific bug in question. If the > maintainer is happy for you to make more changes or to adopt the > package, fine, otherwise stick to the bare minimum (i.e., no > unnecessary packaging changes, no unnecessary changes to debian/rules, > etc.). In general I agree. In this particular case, however, it might be a little different. First of all, the purpose of the NMU requires to upload a new upstream version¹. Consequently, the number of changes isn't very small, anyway. Adding a line to debian/rules like "(cd doc; make html)" and a corresponding entry in changelog doesn't make it more difficult to read the differences in a patch file. Second, it seems as if Josip is no longer interested in the package, and hasn't been for quite a while. I have suggested earlier that Norbert should contact him and ask whether Josip would want to give the package away, and that Norbert prepare a texinfo package from the texlive sources that can cleanly replace the old texinfo package (while the others usually conflict with the respective traditional, teTeX-based packages, or aren't built at all). This package is the result, but unfortunately Josip has not reacted at all. As I see now, he hasn't reacted to the last two RC bugs at all, either. Is he MIA - I guess not generally. Under these circumstances, I think the reasons for the usual NMU rules don't hold, or at least aren't particularly strong: If Josip decides to work on the package again, he'll have to invest time in getting up-to-date, anyway (AFAICS there are no patches for the last NMU's, although one is trivial). Norbert, you should provide one, only for the Debian-specific parts, and ideally comparing the renamed files with the right original. And I'll ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] about Josip. Regards, Frank While thinking about this and looking more closely at the package, I found that Josip has changed some files provided by upstream in the diff.gz. Norbert, you should investigate what the purpose of these fixes are, whether they are Debian-specific or not, and whether they are already incorporated upstream. And you should put information about your action in the changelog. ¹unless you'd want to go the hard way and backport the missing script to 4.7, and do all the checks that it does work. I wouldn't recommend that. -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
