Quoting Scott Kitterman (2019-05-15 04:47:48) > > > On May 15, 2019 1:13:52 AM UTC, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> 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