-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 13 July 2003 06:32, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:14:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > To punt this to the Technical Committee is to stall a solution for > > potentially a very long time. > > > > If you're certain you're right, and you can get the NMU correct, > > the only people who will complain will be the package maintainers. > > And given that they're the ones who'll be uploading the package again > once the NMU is done and can easily revert the change, NMUing against > the wishes of the maintainers and without the support of a higher > authority doesn't seem overly productive either. > > I suppose there's always the option of NMUing, and hoping it sticks > -- then taking it up with the tech ctte. if it doesn't...
I agree with this. Tell the maintainer you are NMU-ing, and do so to Delayed/. If he reverts/override the change, take it to the tech-ctte. Paul Cupis - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ET7NIzuKV+SHX/kRAq9YAJ4wO6NhuyuYo6Nd6Dpdj77JwiiFWwCfTJa9 yaGdRiU6mYYorG5r8QZHCUU= =WdL3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
