Quoting Philip Hands (2022-02-25 10:09:29) > 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. I also think it was fine to do a 0-day NMU here, concretely. I do not think it was fine to refactor packaging _because_ of code smell, however: a) I do *not* think it is generally fine to refactor a package when doing an NMU, even if "smelly" (i.e. packaging style is unusual). [As I now understand it, this is how previous email from Andread should be understood.] b) I also do not think that code smell is a reason for fast-tracking. [I understand now that this is *not* how previous email from Andreas should be understood.] I agree that multiple factors might be involved when doing an NMU, and other factors may weigh higher than preserving current packaging style. Code smell is one such factor, but I oppose to code smell on its own being a reason to refactor an NMU (or to fast-track an NMU, which seems not the point Andreas wanted to make, only my previous misreading). In other words, I think what was done here was a "proper NMU" (just not a simple one). Thanks for the NMU, Andreas, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature