From 8338d8e0b5ad539a57f5431cd12d9b488552a666 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ian Jackson Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:45:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Mention README.source prominently in the context of NMUs, and say not to go against the wishes of the maintainer. --- debian/changelog | 2 ++ pkgs.dbk | 7 ++++++- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index c07b49a..13cbc8b 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ developers-reference (3.4.14~~iwj) UNRELEASED; urgency=low * Be somewhat less discouraging about NMU changes to packaging style, and NMUing new upstream versions. But, break these imprecations out into a separate bullet point to make them clearer. + * Mention README.source prominently in the context of NMUs, and say not + to go against the wishes of the maintainer. -- diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index 53ffb98..d2f0522 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -1976,7 +1976,12 @@ Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions: -Have you geared the NMU towards helping the maintainer? As there might +Have you geared the NMU towards helping the maintainer? You should +pay attention to the maintainer's opinions, as expressed in bug +reports etc. and particularly in +debian/README.source. Do not NMU against the +wishes of the maintainer. +As there might be disagreement on the notion of whether the maintainer actually needs help on not, the DELAYED queue exists to give time to the maintainer to react and has the beneficial side-effect of allowing for independent -- 2.30.2