Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:11:46 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or 
> > > ancient dh compat levels causes fewer problems than people trying to 
> > > change that just for the sake of it.
> > In my experience ancient debian/rules runes are also a cause for
> > repeated RC bugs and the need for NMUs.
> > Real life example:
> > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/libm/libmp3-info-perl/changelog-1.24-1.2
> How well are you testing such conversions?
> Based on work I've seen from you I'd guess your NMU would be better than 
> average. Unfortunately this is not generally true.

I hope I test them well enough :)
(And thanks for the kind feedback.)
> There is no perfect solution here and I also get your point,
> what should be taken into consideration is that there is a
> tradeoff between the benefits and the regressions of breaking
> changes like dh compat bumps or even conversions to dh.

Agreed; additional changes are additional chances for mistakes.

Still, I wanted to make the points that
- further adoption of dh(1) would make my life easier by creating
  fewer bugs of certain categories, and
- the possibility to switch a package to dh(1) (in cases where I know
  what that means, as in the example above with a typical perl
  module; not in complex cases like Marco's examples, and not just for
  the sake of it) would make bug fixing in NMUs easier for me and
  even prevent future bugs.


 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Rigmor Gustafsson: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature