Le mercredi 12 août 2009 à 11:06 -0400, Neil Roeth a écrit : > I've had some packages for years during which policy was changed and required > corresponding changes in my packages. In that case, the "previous developer" > was me, so I'm pretty confident that the previous developer did at least as > good a job as the current developer. :-) > > Your statement is a broad indictment of your fellow DDs as incompetent > developers who cannot perform the simple task of reading a few lines of policy > changes and determine if they imply any required changes for their packages. > Oh, well, it's your life, make all the enemies you want. When you only work on 6 packages for which you do a pretty good job, you tend to assume that other packages in the archive are maintained the same way. Well here’s a scoop, a lot of packages in the archive belong to maintainers with hundreds of them in their hands, whether alone or in teams. Not all packages can receive the level of attention you are expecting. Try going through large parts of the archive when you need to test a change, for example. You may be surprised with the overall quality you’ll meet. After that, you may change your mind about expecting a declarative field to be conformant with the rest of the packaging. Heck, I wouldn’t even trust *myself* to do that correctly. Bumping the standards version is a boring task I have to do so much that I never bother to have a look at the upgrading checklist, except for the most complex packages. > > This also assumes that the upgrading checklist contains all relevant > > information, which is also wrong for real cases. > > Even if it contains most of the relevant information, it is useful. If there > is something missing, that's when someone filing a bug can be a backup. > No need to throw out the baby with the bath water. > > BTW, I just glanced at the debian-policy bug page and see none related to the > upgrading checklist. Can you provide some bug numbers of those "real cases" > of missing information so I can check my packages? No hurry, if you've just > neglected to file them, do that first, then let me know. Thanks. I’m not implying the upgrading checklist itself is incomplete. But there are other things in Debian than following the policy, you know? Most of the changes needed in packages are not here because of changes in the policy itself, but because of changes in other packages: packaging helpers, toolchain, menu system, various pieces of low-level plumbing that upstream redesigns every other month… these are the things that require attention. Not looking at whether the package is using the Speedo fonts. > If there are current bugs, sure, you should attack those first. But you're > making a stronger argument that because the workflow is not bulletproof, that > invalidates the whole process and it should be discarded. I disagree, I find > it very useful and hope we keep it. It may be useful for you, but it is being an annoyance for others. The suitable thing to do in such cases would be to make the field optional. Would that be OK? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=