> Dear Nikita,
> it is difficult to judge since you did not give the package name.
> Nevertheless, the combination of RC bug left unfixed and signs of
> obsolescence (package-uses-deprecated-debhelper-compat-version) suggests
> that the maintainer might be MIA. If nobody wants to maintain this
> package, it should better be orphaned or removed than NMUed. If the
> maintainer is active, it is of course with him and not this list that
> the contents of the NMU have to be discussed. If he gives you green
> light, there is of course no problem fixing no-RC issues.
> Have a nice day,
Package in question was ibm-3270 [source], maintainer is Bastian Blank, bug
I did not put that info into my above mail because my question was actually
about procedure, so I did not want to go into discussing this particular
bug or package or maintainer.
IMO procedure on NMUing is not documented clear enogh in Developer
Reference. At least I got confused, although I'm in debian already for
> > I've just met an uninstallable package with 3-week-old RC bug, caused
> > by soname change of one of dependences. This bug could be fixed by a
> > simple rebuild - I've checked if package builds against today's sid -
> > yes it does.
> > I've never done an NMU before, but this looks like a case to try
> > However, reading developer reference about NMUs, I got confused by
> > normal vs binary-only uploads for this case.
> > Is it ok just to add something like
> > * Non-Maintainer Upload
> > * Rebuild against newer libicu (Closes: XXX)
> > to deban/changelog, build with pbuilder, upload with dput --delayed 2,
> > and drop a mail to maintainer?
> > Or something else should be done?
> > Triggering binary-only NMUs on every architecture somehow?
> > Build-depending on newer libicu-dev [I guess no since package perfectly
> > builds against older libicu-dev]?
> > Something else?
> > Also, is it ok to NMU keeping existing lintian warnings (such as
> > package-uses-deprecated-debhelper-compat-version,
> > out-of-date-standards-version, patch-system-but-no-source-readme)?
> > I don't intend to (co)maintain this package in future, it is just a
> > single-time interest.