Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Hi Adrian,
Am Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:11:02PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> >
> > I agree that there is no real urgency for immediate action - but this
> > seemed to be the case for other bugs on the packages I've touched the
> > case as well.
>
> what time frame do you have in mind when you write "no real urgency"
> and "did not seem very probable"?
I try hard that all packages of the teams I'm involved strongly (Debian
Med, Debian Blends, R pkg team and may be Debian Science but with a
weaker focus from my side) get updated once per release cycle (just to
get them build with latest toolchain and look at least once whether the
watch file is reporting new versions correctly). I'm aware that this
measure is not applied by all maintainers.
> For me a reasonable time frame for changes that are neither urgent nor
> supposed to create user-visible changes in the binary packages would be
> to ensure it is a lintian warning now, and then wait 10 years.
Given that one release cycle might be a bit dense in all cases I'd
consider two cycles (about 4 years) a sensible goal. I would call
the term "real urgency" maximum half a year - thus I was choosing
"no real urgency".
> Many maintainers touch their packages at least once per release cycle
> and also check lintian warnings, so many packages will get fixed within
> the next 1-2 years.
So we seem to share the same measure. I think the packages Lucas was
pointing to are in most cases not maintained by these "many maintainers"
(wild guessing from what I was looking at).
> Most packages will get a new maintainer or a new team member in an
> existing maintainance team within the next 10 years, and with the
> help of a lintian warning this is the natural time for doing such
> changes.
I think we can all agree upon bumping the lintian severity to
warning.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: