[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")



Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:

> 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.

FWIW I also started work on xdelta3 when I saw the removal warning for
installation-guide, but when I got to the point of creating a repo on
salsa you'd beaten me to it by about an hour :-)

I'd gone for a slightly lighter-touch approach, in that I'd only done
about half of what you'd done, but having looked, you had clearly done a
much more thorough job, and I had nothing to add.

I had replaced CDBS with dh simply because CDBS was FTBFS, and was only
a minimal 2-includes rules file, so it wasn't really contributing
anything that would justify working out how to fix it.

> 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.

Given that the bug that's threatening its removal (#965883) has been
ignored for almost 2 years, and is about the fact that it had a dh
compat version of 5, which is completely trivial to fix, so the package
certainly has the look of having been abandoned, which is why I think
it's fine to do what you did, and I think you did a very good job of it.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: