Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58:12PM +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> > This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has uploaded a fixed
> > xdelta3 package today.
>
> Now that I know that the new xdelta3 is uploaded, I am OK.
BTW, I stumbled upon xdelta3 since also a package of mine received this
autoremoval warning. Usually I try to take action on it.
I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the
packaging standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes maintained
on Salsa, usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically removing the smell
from the package). I decided for the latter but at the same time I
was aware that I violated the rules we gave given each other.
Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made
me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator
of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary
work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the discussion
about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell from packages
is accepted.
Kind regards
Andreas.
According to
https://trends.debian.net/packages-with-smells-sorted-by-maintainer.txt
xdelta3 had the following issues which are fixed now:
xdelta3 debhelper compatibility level: 5 (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1)
xdelta3 should switch to dh. Current build system: cdbs (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1)
xdelta3 does not use a VCS for package maintenance. should switch to git on salsa or dgit. (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1)
xdelta3 does not use the machine-readable copyright format. (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1)
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: