Re: NMUs: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 21:37:32 +0200
- From: Andreas Tille <tille@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: NMUs: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, I think there is an emerging consensus against the idea of people
> NMUing a package simply to convert it to dh.
> First, I'd like to explicitly call for any last comments from people who would
> like to see us permit NMUs simply to move packages toward dh.
I admit despite I'm in big favour of having the majority of packages
converted to dh I would not feel my time well spent to browse the
archive for packages that might be "smelling" like candidates.
> Are there
> any cases in which such an NMU should be permitted?
If a package has a RC bug or some important bug that annoys me for a
certain reason and fixing it would be easier by just doing a dh
conversion is a pretty good candidate for me. Or if I need to touch
such a package and the conversion is obviously very simple I would like
to do so. I will do so in case I'm a member of the team that maintains
the package without question - otherwise I'd give the maintainer a
warning and ask for permission (but will usually write something like
"If I do not hear from you in X days I assume you agree with this.")
> Finally, I'd like to focus discussion on an area where emerging
> consensus is much less clear.
> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when those
> conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are fixing as
> part of an NMU?
That's one of the cases I mentioned above.
> That is, imagine that a package is mishandling the combination of
> systemd units and an init script. As someone preparing an NMU, is it
> reasonable to move to dh compat 12 from some other build system if I
> believe doing so will make it easier for me to fix the bug and verify
> the fix?
Good example for a valid dh conversion.