,---- | > | >> Perhaps the DMUA field adds some security concern. However currently, | >> neither Samuel nor I am a DM. In later versions, I'll just drop DMUA | >> field and ask my sponsor, Steffen, to use the new DM permission | >> interface (after I become a DM). | > | > The DMUA field is in the process of being deprecated, as you mentioned. | > It's certainly not appropriate to be setting it where none of the people | > involved are DMs; it's not really worth adding to new packages in any | > case. Uploading a new source with DMUA set is also a little unusual. | | DMUA removed now.[2] `----
Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now, (2) the changelog says his *sponsor* added the DMUA field based working with him before, and (3) the packages have the field now, so is it really worth removing? (It's quite true that a control field is not a good way to do this, but that doesn't mean that it's completely unusable or useless!) I propose that Guo put the DMUA back, then upload the revised versions of gcc-4.6-doc and gcc-4.7-doc *himself* rather than waiting for a sponsor to do it. p.s. Note that, technically, Guo didn't set me as Maintainer: I did; this should have been fairly obvious from the changelogs. (This was back before I essentially abandoned the project, partly in despair of getting gcc-doc-defaults to match gcc-defaults and partly for lack of feedback from potential sponsors.) All Guo did was fail to set himself as Maintainer when he took it over, which is especially puzzling given that I was essentially MIA... p.p.s. Guo, how come you didn't specifically ask Steffan Moeller to handle this batch of RFSes, especially: bug #691022: RFS: gcc-4.4-doc-non-dfsg/4.4.7-1 (since you should be able to do the other two yourself)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8vavpr4m....@naesten.dyndns.org
