On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:54:41 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Section 5.11.1: > > > > - Seems to imply that the only reason to do an NMU is for fixing bugs. In > > interpreting this, it is not clear that a wishlist bug report of "please > > package the new upstream version" is something that could be valid to do an > > NMU for if the maintainer doesn't have time to do the work. > > wishlist bugs are bugs, so they are covered.
While some wishlist requests can be clearly considered bugs, not all of them are. The ones that are not, must get the same consideration the style and cosmetic advice gives later on, because not doing so inflicts the maintenance cost involved in carrying that delta around onto the maintainer, the additional penalty of having to maintain this further due to compatibility reasons if upstream does not accept that code at all or in a different form, more so if the maintainer has for example a 0-delta policy regarding upstream changes, etc. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
