On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:11:46 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or > > > ancient dh compat levels causes fewer problems than people trying to > > > change that just for the sake of it. > > In my experience ancient debian/rules runes are also a cause for > > repeated RC bugs and the need for NMUs. > > Real life example: > > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/libm/libmp3-info-perl/changelog-1.24-1.2 > How well are you testing such conversions? > Based on work I've seen from you I'd guess your NMU would be better than > average. Unfortunately this is not generally true. I hope I test them well enough :) (And thanks for the kind feedback.) > There is no perfect solution here and I also get your point, > what should be taken into consideration is that there is a > tradeoff between the benefits and the regressions of breaking > changes like dh compat bumps or even conversions to dh. Agreed; additional changes are additional chances for mistakes. Still, I wanted to make the points that - further adoption of dh(1) would make my life easier by creating fewer bugs of certain categories, and - the possibility to switch a package to dh(1) (in cases where I know what that means, as in the example above with a typical perl module; not in complex cases like Marco's examples, and not just for the sake of it) would make bug fixing in NMUs easier for me and even prevent future bugs. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Rigmor Gustafsson: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature