On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:55 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > (I'm creating a new thread rather than replying to a particular > message, because my mail is not at all personal. It's a general > tendency amongst many debian-mentors reviewers that I'm going to > rant about.) > > A sponsor on 2011-07-08, 11:22 wrote: > >1. You're using debhelper compat 7 and also only debhelper >= > >7.0.50~ as Build-Depends. Please bump that to 8 > > Seriously? Is the sponsor suggesting that one should be > build-depending on a newer version, even though one does not use any > features of the newer one? > Also, the sponsor failed to explain that normally upgrading > debhelper compat is not a matter of bumping a number here and there. I can understand how this applies to older packages that have been created in the past and just don't use some of the new functionality, but I guess that the points are valid for completely new packages. I had the impression that it is desirable to create those in such a way that they use the latest compat, debhelper features and soon-to-be policy additions such as DEP5. > That's a potentially time consuming and error-prone process. Creating a package for the first time is a time consuming process, but should one not target the current state of the art? > Dear reviewers, next time if you are going to complain about: > - debian/compat being "too low"; Are there specific reasons to choose a version lower than the recommended one for *new* packages? > - debian/rules not using dh (or not using cdbs); If I were to sponsor packages I would at least like to see a justification why these have not been used. The decision not to use these helpers might be well-justified, but should be made explicit as the reasons not to use dh, for example, might mean that the helper is lacking functionality or behaves buggy in certain situations. > - debian/copyright not in DEP-5 format; You have to create that file anyway for a new package, why not use DEP5? > Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (some of) these things are "good". > But making a big fuss about them is not helping anybody. It only > distracts attention from things that are important, and creates > false impression that they are somehow crucial for high quality > packages. I can assure, they are not. +1 IMHO the package creation phase is a very important step in the lifetime of a package and should target the state-of-the-art, as it lays the groundwork for everything that comes afterwards. Are there reasons not to focus on being up-to-date? Uploading a non-DEP5 package for example just means that the copyright has to be changed later in order to be policy compliant, doesn't it? -- .''`. Wolodja Wentland <babilen@gmail.com> : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature