Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:24:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
> > A version is published to our users when it gets accepted into
> > the archive.
> >
> > Readable information in apt-listchanges is IMHO more important
> > than theoretical discussions around whether something submitted
> > to mentors.d.n is public.
>
> apt-listchanges will present the right section of the changelog
> anyway.
Assuming your "skip 10 versions and use one changelog stanza"
suggestion is done.
> > A changelog is also permanent, and people might read it decades later
> > for understanding packaging decisions - already today it is not uncommon
> > to check 20 year old changelog entries for that.
> >
> > For either of the above a weird version history or 10 Debian revisions
> > until a new maintainer got her first packaging attempt correct are
> > not optimal.
>
> I disagree completely.
>
> Furthermore, of it really does get to 10 versions, containing
> absurdities, then the most-recent-version's changelog stanza can
> contain a summary of the differences from the previously-accepted
> upload.
I've had cases where the only thing I criticized in a sponsorship
request was "this change is not mentioned in the changelog".
What I got was an updated package with an added line in the changelog,
and that was perfectly fine.
As sponsor, being nitpicky about good packaging becomes less desirable
if this would result in skipped versions in the uploaded package.
> > Or a more funny issue:
> > How would you notice a version reuse in all cases?
> > A package uploaded to mentors.d.n. adopting a package with
> > "New maintainer" as only change is usually a reject. If some DD does
> > the same years later, there is no record anywhere that this version
> > was already taken by some random person from the internet who once
> > upon a time uploaded it to mentors.d.n.
>
> That a bad practice cannot always be detected by tooling does not make
> it a good practice.
Imagine tomorrow a random person from the internet noone has ever heard
of uploads a package dgit 5.0 to mentors.d.n.
It is clear that this would not be sponsored.
"detected by tooling" would mean that this would result in dak
autorejecting any future uploads of a dgit package version 5.0
to Debian.
> Ian.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: