Re: R³

[intrigeri <intrigeri@debian.org>]

Hi,

gregor herrmann (2020-02-04):
>> On 30/01/20 8:48 pm, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> > In practice it seems that some people have started to add
>> > "Rules-Requires-Root: no" to some packages. And lintian
>> > mentions it.
>> > 
>> > As I like consistency :)

The way I see it, before we make something the default, it's good to
start experimenting with it in a narrower scope, in order to identify
issues and build confidence that it could be a sane default.
That's why I've started setting "R³: no" almost every time I touch
a package some time ago, hence introducing some — hopefully
temporary — inconsistency.

As far as Debian packaging is concerned, I do like consistency too,
so thank you for restarting this conversation :)

>> > I'd like to bring this up again: Do we want
>> > it for all packages? If yes a change in dh-make-perl and probably a
>> > mass commit [0] would be necessary steps. And/or cme?

> Besides the question of a potential mass change in git: Are there
> opinions for or against R³:no as a default policy, as a default in
> dh-make-perl (somewhere else?)?

So far, in my limited experience, I've not noticed any breakage caused
by "R³: no" in any package I've touched. This makes me feel confident
we can now enable it by default in dh-make-perl (including "refresh").

I would not dare advocating for a mass commit right now, because most
likely I won't help much dealing with its fallout. Perhaps the mass
commit could be another step, to deal with the (probably huge) long
tail of packages that haven't "R³: no" yet, a few months after we
started systematically enabling it while updating+uploading packages,
and built more confidence into it and into our ability to identify
problematic cases?

Cheers!