Web lists-archives.com

Re: NMUs: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

Quoting Scott Kitterman (2019-05-15 04:47:48)
> On May 15, 2019 1:13:52 AM UTC, Paul Wise <pabs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:31 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >If the maintainer is MIA enough to not express an opinion when asked 
> >if adding a dh conversion to the NMU is fine, probably the package 
> >should be orphaned/salvaged instead of NMUed, which would bring the 
> >dh conversion into scope.
> I'd think the timeline for that would be longer than the week or two 
> it takes to do an NMU.

Yes the timeline of an NMU being short is the very issue as I see it: 
Switching build system may be easy to do but less easy to maintain for 
the maintainer - regardless of popularity in general.

No, major package refactoring like change of build system is 
unacceptable in NMUs, because it strongly affects long-term maintenance.

Real underlying question seems instead to be this:

Do we tolerate maintainers using a "wrong" packaging style - i.e. an 
unpopular style fewer find easy to do NMUs for?

Yes, let's recommend what is popular.  But not this.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature