Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)
On 05/01/24 21:17, Paul Gevers wrote:
Another worry, how will you provide the required changes to the
maintainers of the packages? Via BTS? For those working on salsa: MR?
Both? Something else? Obviously we should not end in the situation that
a new upload goes back to the old name (or are the ftp-masters so keen
on this transition that that won't happen? But what about newer versions
with the old name already in experimental, conform the former worry?).
I've seen NMU's being ignored by subsequent uploads by the maintainer,
even when they fixed RC issues which were then reintroduced.
Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated
packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]?
And the fact that maintainers can decide to maintain their packages in
idiosyncratic ways (e.g., no VCS) "just because"?
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/grow-your-ideas/-/issues/24
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/grow-your-ideas/-/issues/34
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
Reply to: