Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting change in DPT policy)
Hi Étienne,
Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:37:59AM +0100 schrieb Étienne Mollier:
> > > Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage
> > > maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team
> > > members to check that file before they team-upload.
> >
> > I think this is a very good idea. In case MR[1] will be accepted this
> > should be added to the policy as well. I'm not sure whether the
> > "Maintainership" paragraph is the best place to add this. I wonder if
> > you (or someone with the same doubts) might want to suggest another MR
> > to add this debian/README.DPT feature.
>
> Policy changes aside,
(Thus changed subject. ;-) )
> I think it could be useful for the
> routine-update command to stop when such file is hit, in order
> to raise the importance that the package has quirks, and should
> not be casually updated without involved scrutiny. I wonder
> whether this can be generalized, like if d/README.source file is
> present? (Although the latter use is codified[2] and I'm not
> confident it is 100% suitable for such purpose: I see many such
> files on my radar which do not necessarily hint for quirks.)
>
> Of course this could be overred with a --readme-reviewed flag
> once ready to finalize the package with automation for instance.
I like all your suggestions. When reading Timo's suggestion about
debian/README.DPT I also thought about rather using the more generic
debian/README.source. In any case I agree that routine-update should
respect such debian/README.* (except debian/README.Debian which is
user oriented).
I admit I like this kind of constructive discussion.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20
> [2]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#source-package-handling-debian-readme-source
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: