On Thu 22 Oct 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > > Finally, I'd like to hear for any listening porters (Roman?) about why
Paul OK? :-) > binary-only NMUs are a necessary part of their porting workflow. I > understand they are simply a lot faster to produce in cases where > minor, interactive style hacking is required on a package. They are currently "necessary" because of the mandatory waiting period between filing a bug and doing a "normal" NMU (i.e. with source). It's not manageable for porters who do dozens if not hunderds of packages to keep track of all of this. If policy is changed that for portability issues immediate "normal" NMUs are permitted, then I'd have no problem in doing this. The point is that currently it is _not_ policy, and I'd invoke the wrath of those developers who don't immediately understand the problem, and who subsequently feel that their authority over their package has been stepped on. This _has_ happened in the past... Aside: most maintainers respond very well to my NMU bug reports, and some actually ask how they can be more helpful, etc. A couple simply never respond, and also don't make any effort to implement the patches. In those cases a normal NMU would be in order, however, I can't keep track of this all. Is there a way to find all bug reports submitted by a particular person (i.e. email address) ? This would help here (especially if a constraint could be added such as "older than x days"). > But again, the binary or source NMU issue is a moot point, licensing > wise, until the management of source in the Debian archive is fixed. I'm in total agreement here. Paul Slootman -- home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
