On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:45:48PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >... > 1/ the arguments about using patches to track changes to upstream code. > Among the ~600 packages in that potential MBF, there are still many that > make changes to upstream code, which are not properly documented. I > believe that it is widely accepted that seperate patches in > debian/patches/ are the recommended way to manage changes to upstream code > (good way to help with those changes getting reviewed, getting merged > upstream, etc.)
This is a reason *against* using RC bugs for forcing people to change it this year: The sane way to minimize the regression risk when NMUing such an RC bug would be to dump the diff into a patch without touching it. >... > 3/ the arguments about standardization/simplication of packaging > practices, that make it easier (1) for contributors to contribute to any > package (think security support, NMUers, but also derivatives); >... Actual work and actual breakage for the benefits of hypothetical contributors, that does not sound very convincing to me. I am doing QA/NMU/*stable uploads for a three digit number of packages I do not maintain every year, and this is not something I recall being a real problem. > You argue that it's fine to wait 10 years for a transition such as the > switch to 3.0 (quilt). Actually, it has already been 11 years, since > 3.0 (quilt) was introduced around 2011 >... Time before an issue is a lintian warning doesn't count. If it isn't a problem for anyone and lintian does not warn, how would anyone even notice? > What we are talking about here is the "end game": there are less than 2% > of packages in testing that are still using 1.0, >... There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 600 (?) packages is a more realistic depiction than 2%. If done carefully how many hours of work do you estimate it would take for all 600 packages, including ones that might for some reason be hard to convert? If you want to force work upon many people in the project, the burden of proof is on you to show that the time is better spent on this than on other bookworm work that could be done instead. > Lucas cu Adrian
