On 20-04-23 20 h 52, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On April 24, 2020 12:26:27 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" <pollo@debian.org> wrote: >> On 20-04-23 17 h 54, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:21:49 PM EDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: >>>> This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in >>>> #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: >>>> >> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructu >>>> re.html >>> >>> Thanks. I mailed the bug to point out this tag is currently >> problematic. >> >> FWIW, I proposed we merge the DPMT and the PAPT a few months ago [1] >> and >> migrate to team+python@tracker.debian.org. >> >> That would also solve the current issue with lintian :) >> >> [1]: >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/10 > > And I don't think the response was particularly positive. My recollection was that there's a preference for two teams because packages and modules have different needs. Hmm, from the discussions we had on the mailing list and on Salsa the feedback was mainly positive actually. Happy to talk some more about it either on Salsa or on the ML: https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00021.html > > I don't think we should let an artificial sense of urgency because lintian push us in to anything (apologies if I'm remembering the wrong instance of this being suggested - it's happened before). Agreed :) Sorry for disrupting this thread. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature