Re: Moving away from (unsupportable) FusionForge on Alioth?
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Right. IIRC that was said to me at Debconf16 about Debian-specific
> services (such as ci.debian.net which was the context of my question).
Yeah, for codebases maintained by the service maintainer not having
packages seems reasonable (but not for dependencies of that codebase)
and that seems to be the current feeling within DSA.
Personally I'm leaning towards the feeling that all configuration,
code and dependencies for Debian services should be packaged and
subjected to the usual Debian QA activities but I acknowledge that the
current archive setup (testing migration plus backporting etc) doesn't
necessarily make this easy. The PPA/bikeshed mechanism might make it
more feasible if that happens.
> It makes sense to prefer packages for something that has a proper
> upstream that is not us, which is the case in this discussion.
> In any case, it would be super useful to have this explicitly documented
> at the DSA website.
AFAICT, DSA doesn't have any hard rules/policy written down, just
evaluation on a case-by-case basis.