Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

[Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>]

On 7/26/19 4:40 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> It seams to me reading this thread that there are those who would like
> to mandate the use of a given VCS on a particular host.
> 
> The primary advantages being that it makes CI so much simpler, and
> having a uniform workflow makes it easier for those not maintaining a
> given package to view and make changes (occasionally distribution wide).
> 
> On the other hand there is also those who would rather not see this
> become mandatory.  Various reasons have been given, but if I have
> understood correctly they boil down to a few classes namely; doesn't
> fit our model, a lot or work to change for few if any perceived benefit,
> principled belief that maintainer is free to maintain however
> they see fit.
> 
> Personally I see no reason to mandate such a change, with policy only
> recommending / preferring the proposed changes. Furthermore I accept
> that the policy should strongly recommend (i.e. require an explanation
> why not) for NEW packages.

Consider this...

As per our discussion in Debconf, we're attempting to remove Python 2
from Bullseye. So, I decided to commit myself to try to do one Python 2
removal per day. Doing so, I often encounter very badly maintained
packages (ie: far behind upstream, bugs, no py3 support even if upstream
has it, you name it...). And often, I get these packages maintained on a
proprietary platform, where I have no write access. As a result, I'm
forced to either register on the said non-free platform, and use a
workflow which I very much dislike. It's either that ... or I just
ignore the VCS fields, and the VCS becomes outdated, missing my upload,
with a very good chance that it will never get updated. That's really
bad for any future contributor that probably will also encounter the
same problem, with on top, my changes not commited. Add on top of this
that when you do 'apt-get source foo', then apt suggests to fetch the
sources from that non-free platform, which has outdated sources. How do
you explain this to a Debian newbie that wants to start contributing to
Debian? This really doesn't make sense at all.

How do you handle such case, if not enforcing some kind of rules? Well,
that's what motivated me to start this discussion. However, I'll let Sam
take over, and see how it develops.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)