On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > In general, I think so. I'm unsure about the first "must" though, I tend > to like that we're not so rigid and inflexible in our policies that we > can't cater for a few exceptions. For example, I could understand that > packagers of a VCS system would want to host their work in such a VCS, > for example... [...] > I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be > aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing > in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible. I agree with your analysis here: there is a clear trade-off between flexibility in package maintenance practices and uniformity. I know well where I'm placed on that trade-off: I'd take uniformity every day. I'm convinced Debian's inability to impose one way of maintaining packages is holding us back in our ability to implement (by the means of semi-automation) archive-wide changes and is also setting the bug for newcomers unreasonably high. What I'm trying to determine with this sub-thread is which candidates, if any, are willing to take a courageous stance on this matter and, if so, how will they go about it. For now, I'm understanding that you're more inclined than Ganneff to take steps to uniform package maintenance practices, but at the same time you want to retain some uniformity. So I'm still at loss at what *concrete steps* you will take to increase uniformity throughout the archive. Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature