On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:11 -0400, root wrote: > ,---- > | > > | >> 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). [...] > | DMUA removed now.[2] > `---- > > Wait a minute, here: (1) Guo seems to be a DM now
He wasn't at the time I queried it, as his own mail above confirms. > (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!) Actually, it *is* useless, or will be very soon - specifically in exactly a month. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg00008.html As of November 24th, its presence will serve no purpose. > 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.) It wasn't at all obvious from the .changes file which was uploaded, i.e. http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gcc-4.6-doc/news/20121003T190008Z.html Regards, Adam -- 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/1351109905.21721.27.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
