Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2022-02-26 00:08:47) > On 2/25/22 11:38, Philip Hands wrote: > > Having looked at how it was done, I applaud Andreas for doing a > > proper job. > > +1 > > Anyone complaining about this kind of contribution to Debian is a > moron and a barrier to progress. We really need to get rid of this > toxic mentality in Debian. I wonder who the fuck¹ you might be babbling about above - clearly not the kind of "toxic" person "complaining" like this: Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2022-02-25 12:03:20) > In other words, I think what was done here was a "proper NMU" (just > not a simple one). > > > Thanks for the NMU, Andreas, > Jonas, I strongly disagree with using this type of example like you > just did in this thread. In many cases, switching from long-form dh to > short form is by the way a very nice improvement (if the result is > obviously very minimal, as opposed to a very verbosy-for-nothing long > form, for example). Though you've decided to take the extreme example > when one is strongly opposed to short-form dh, because of "packaging > style". So IMO, your reply is inappropriate, we should only give > encouragements to Andreas, and welcome progress. You seem to have totally missed my point. I am very sorry that I have failed at getting it across to you, so let me try once more... I agree that switching from long-form dh to short-form dh is in many (possibly all) cases a "very nice improvement". But that is missing the point! Point is if it is ok to remove packaging smell as part of an NMU. It does not matter if current maintainer is strongly opposed to or wildly in love with short-form dh. What matters is that an NMU is work done without coordination of the package maintainer. Purpose of an NMU is not to make "a very nice improvement" but to make as minimal as possible change to a package, because someone else is maintaining that package and should be *aided* in *their* maintenance, not coerced into doing things differently. When Andreas asks a question We certainly should not *only* give encouragement. We should *also* appreciate Andreas' work, but we should try answer his question. We should *not* welcome progress *IN AN NMU*. Because that's the wrong place for progress! - Jonas ¹ I apologize ahead to anyone feeling offended by my choice of words there - was a minimal way for me to to let out steam for whas I perceive as an unfounded personal attack unworthy of further elaboration but also unacceptable for me to silently ignore. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
On 2/25/22 11:38, Philip Hands wrote: Having looked at how it was done, I applaud Andreas for doing a proper job. +1 Anyone complaining about this kind of contribution to Debian is a moron and a barrier to progress. We really need to get rid of this toxic mentality in Debian. Jonas, I strongly disagree with using this type of example like you just did in this thread. In many cases, switching from long-form dh to short form is by the way a very nice improvement (if the result is obviously very minimal, as opposed to a very verbosy-for-nothing long form, for example). Though you've decided to take the extreme example when one is strongly opposed to short-form dh, because of "packaging style". So IMO, your reply is inappropriate, we should only give encouragements to Andreas, and welcome progress. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Hi Paul, Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:49:00PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > On 25-02-2022 15:02, Andreas Tille wrote: > > My point was rather that the suggested salvage procedure might not raise > > any signal and I'm pretty sure that I would have lost track on this. > > Everybody is now free to help and fix the autopkgtest regression that causes > the NMU to fail to migrate. > > """ > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -llzma: No such file or directory > """ That was one of the tests that works inside the pbuilder hook where the chroot has all Build-Depends but a clean chroot is missing these. I've fixed this in my latest upload. Thanks a lot for watching me Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Hi all, Thanks Andreas, for taking care. On 25-02-2022 15:02, Andreas Tille wrote: My point was rather that the suggested salvage procedure might not raise any signal and I'm pretty sure that I would have lost track on this. Everybody is now free to help and fix the autopkgtest regression that causes the NMU to fail to migrate. """ /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -llzma: No such file or directory """ Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:09:26PM +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > Please note that "has no RC bugs" is *NOT* the threshold for NMUs, and > certainly not if your approach to doing the NMU involved package > refactoring: When you do an NMU, it is your responsibility to ensure > that your changes did not introduce new bugs (not only RC bugs, any > bug!). > > One of the reasons it is recommended to do minimal NMUs is exactly that: > To limit the risk of introducing new bugs. > > When you choose to do a complex NMU which involves refactoring packaging > (because is smelled), then you should expect to continue to keep that > "on your radar" for some time because subtle bugs may have been > introduced from such a radical change. I fully agree here. Luckily we have maintainers dashboard which now puts a additional package on my desk. So xdelta3 would raise a signal there which I would act upon hopefully in a timely manner hopefully. My point was rather that the suggested salvage procedure might not raise any signal and I'm pretty sure that I would have lost track on this. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Philip Hands (2022-02-25 11:38:25) > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > ... > > Yes, which means you can fast-track for *THAT* reason - unrelated to > > code smell, which is specifically what I was talking about. > > I understand that you were reacting to the idea that one can just > stomp on the existing packaging simply because it "smells bad", but I > don't think that was really what was being suggested. > > I took Andreas's question to be more about: > > If a package is obviously suffering badly from neglect, and urgently > needs an upload anyway, is it reasonable to fix as many problems as > you can while you are at it, or should one only do the bare minimum > to get past the RC bug that's prompting the upload? > > Having looked at how it was done, I applaud Andreas for doing a proper > job. > > If the package gets any attention from the maintainer in future, I > would guess that the fact that the package is now in a much better > state will be rather motivating. > > If the maintainer happens to disagree with any of the changes, each is > in a separate commit, so would be very easily reverted, but every > change seemed like a worthwhile improvement to me. I fully agree. Thanks for your folowup. I already posted what was intended as communicating somewhat same as above, but since there is a real risk that I failed at getting that message across, I explicitly confirm here as well :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Andreas Tille (2022-02-25 10:43:42) > Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:35:43AM +0100 schrieb Johannes Schauer > Marin Rodrigues: > > Is this not something that can be solved by salvaging [1] the > > package in question? > > My question is targeting in this direction since salvaging is what we > somehow agreed upon. > > > Do a tiny NMU fixing an RC bug (and only that) first but then after > > waiting 21 days you can get the packaging into shape without your > > changes being classified as a NMU and thus without the restrictions > > we put upon the changes allowed in a NMU. > > In this specific case I would have needed to keep my focus on that > package over at least three weeks. I have lots of packages that are > "raising singnals" (testing removal or other things that end up in my > mailbox) and once xdelta3 has no RC bugs any more it would have > vanished from my radar. Please note that "has no RC bugs" is *NOT* the threshold for NMUs, and certainly not if your approach to doing the NMU involved package refactoring: When you do an NMU, it is your responsibility to ensure that your changes did not introduce new bugs (not only RC bugs, any bug!). One of the reasons it is recommended to do minimal NMUs is exactly that: To limit the risk of introducing new bugs. When you choose to do a complex NMU which involves refactoring packaging (because is smelled), then you should expect to continue to keep that "on your radar" for some time because subtle bugs may have been introduced from such a radical change. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Philip Hands (2022-02-25 10:09:29) > Andreas Tille writes: > > > Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58:12PM +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: > >> > This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has > >> > uploaded a fixed xdelta3 package today. > >> > >> Now that I know that the new xdelta3 is uploaded, I am OK. > > > > BTW, I stumbled upon xdelta3 since also a package of mine received > > this autoremoval warning. Usually I try to take action on it. > > > > I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the > > packaging standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes > > maintained on Salsa, usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically > > removing the smell from the package). I decided for the latter but > > at the same time I was aware that I violated the rules we gave given > > each other. > > FWIW I also started work on xdelta3 when I saw the removal warning for > installation-guide, but when I got to the point of creating a repo on > salsa you'd beaten me to it by about an hour :-) > > I'd gone for a slightly lighter-touch approach, in that I'd only done > about half of what you'd done, but having looked, you had clearly done > a much more thorough job, and I had nothing to add. > > I had replaced CDBS with dh simply because CDBS was FTBFS, and was > only a minimal 2-includes rules file, so it wasn't really contributing > anything that would justify working out how to fix it. > > > Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) > > made me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the > > creator of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the > > necessary work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again > > the discussion about how much changes are allowed to simply remove > > smell from packages is accepted. > > Given that the bug that's threatening its removal (#965883) has been > ignored for almost 2 years, and is about the fact that it had a dh > compat version of 5, which is completely trivial to fix, so the > package certainly has the look of having been abandoned, which is why > I think it's fine to do what you did, and I think you did a very good > job of it. I also think it was fine to do a 0-day NMU here, concretely. I do not think it was fine to refactor packaging _because_ of code smell, however: a) I do *not* think it is generally fine to refactor a package when doing an NMU, even if "smelly" (i.e. packaging style is unusual). [As I now understand it, this is how previous email from Andread should be understood.] b) I also do not think that code smell is a reason for fast-tracking. [I understand now that this is *not* how previous email from Andreas should be understood.] I agree that multiple factors might be involved when doing an NMU, and other factors may weigh higher than preserving current packaging style. Code smell is one such factor, but I oppose to code smell on its own being a reason to refactor an NMU (or to fast-track an NMU, which seems not the point Andreas wanted to make, only my previous misreading). In other words, I think what was done here was a "proper NMU" (just not a simple one). Thanks for the NMU, Andreas, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Jonas Smedegaard writes: ... > Yes, which means you can fast-track for *THAT* reason - unrelated to > code smell, which is specifically what I was talking about. I understand that you were reacting to the idea that one can just stomp on the existing packaging simply because it "smells bad", but I don't think that was really what was being suggested. I took Andreas's question to be more about: If a package is obviously suffering badly from neglect, and urgently needs an upload anyway, is it reasonable to fix as many problems as you can while you are at it, or should one only do the bare minimum to get past the RC bug that's prompting the upload? Having looked at how it was done, I applaud Andreas for doing a proper job. If the package gets any attention from the maintainer in future, I would guess that the fact that the package is now in a much better state will be rather motivating. If the maintainer happens to disagree with any of the changes, each is in a separate commit, so would be very easily reverted, but every change seemed like a worthwhile improvement to me. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Bastian Blank (2022-02-25 10:04:46) > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:50:18AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I would certainly be frustrated if someone fast-tracked an NMU with > > structural changes like switching to short-form dh, with the > > reasoning that "the packaged had a smell to it", for a package that > > I maintain. > > Well, do you ignore RC bugs for a long time? Do you not respond at > all the same way? No, would you? Please don't put words in my mouth: I was talking about something specific that you cut out from your quote. > xdelta3 was not uploaded for six years. So you can somehow say it was > abandoned. Yes, which means you can fast-track for *THAT* reason - unrelated to code smell, which is specifically what I was talking about. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:50:18AM +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made > > me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator > > of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary > > work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the > > discussion about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell > > from packages is accepted. > > Do you mean to say above that "smell removal" is somehow not an NMU?!? I simply did more than fixing the RC bug and I also did not used DELAYED queue. > I would certainly be frustrated if someone fast-tracked an NMU with > structural changes like switching to short-form dh, with the reasoning > that "the packaged had a smell to it", for a package that I maintain. I confirm that I would not simply pick from the list of smelling packages without good reason (I think a RC bug affecting one of my packages is a good reason). > I recall that we have discussed which packaging style to recommened > someone that has no strong opinion, but I am unaware that we have > decided that "smelly" packages are now somehow "outlawed" in the sense > that they don't need *exactly* the same caution as any other NMU. My point was: If I fix an RC package than I decide to remove smell with the same upload. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Hi Philip, Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:09:29AM +0100 schrieb Philip Hands: > > FWIW I also started work on xdelta3 when I saw the removal warning for > installation-guide, but when I got to the point of creating a repo on > salsa you'd beaten me to it by about an hour :-) Nice. ;-) May be I should sleep one hour longer and than I have extra spare time since somebody else might solve my problems in that time. ;-P > I'd gone for a slightly lighter-touch approach, in that I'd only done > about half of what you'd done, but having looked, you had clearly done a > much more thorough job, and I had nothing to add. Thanks. > Given that the bug that's threatening its removal (#965883) has been > ignored for almost 2 years, and is about the fact that it had a dh > compat version of 5, which is completely trivial to fix, so the package > certainly has the look of having been abandoned, which is why I think > it's fine to do what you did, and I think you did a very good job of it. Thank you for you support Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Am Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:35:43AM +0100 schrieb Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues: > Is this not something that can be solved by salvaging [1] the package in > question? My question is targeting in this direction since salvaging is what we somehow agreed upon. > Do a tiny NMU fixing an RC bug (and only that) first but then after > waiting 21 days you can get the packaging into shape without your changes > being > classified as a NMU and thus without the restrictions we put upon the changes > allowed in a NMU. In this specific case I would have needed to keep my focus on that package over at least three weeks. I have lots of packages that are "raising singnals" (testing removal or other things that end up in my mailbox) and once xdelta3 has no RC bugs any more it would have vanished from my radar. I would have needed to refresh my mind after that time which costs extra time and energy. I would also not been able to apply the existing patch easily since it did more than only fixing the RC bug. So I intentionally did something else than salvaging procedure described to save my own time for what I considered the final outcome later anyway. Kind regards Andreas. > [1] > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Andreas Tille (2022-02-25 09:22:38) > I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the packaging > standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes maintained on Salsa, > usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically removing the smell from the > package). I decided for the latter but at the same time I was aware that I > violated the rules we gave given each other. > > Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made > me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator > of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary > work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the discussion > about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell from packages > is accepted. Is this not something that can be solved by salvaging [1] the package in question? Do a tiny NMU fixing an RC bug (and only that) first but then after waiting 21 days you can get the packaging into shape without your changes being classified as a NMU and thus without the restrictions we put upon the changes allowed in a NMU. Thanks! cheers, josch [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Hi On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:50:18AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I would certainly be frustrated if someone fast-tracked an NMU with > structural changes like switching to short-form dh, with the reasoning > that "the packaged had a smell to it", for a package that I maintain. Well, do you ignore RC bugs for a long time? Do you not respond at all the same way? xdelta3 was not uploaded for six years. So you can somehow say it was abandoned. Bastian -- Our way is peace. -- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, "Bread and Circuses", stardate 4040.7.
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Andreas Tille writes: > Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58:12PM +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: >> > This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has uploaded a >> > fixed >> > xdelta3 package today. >> >> Now that I know that the new xdelta3 is uploaded, I am OK. > > BTW, I stumbled upon xdelta3 since also a package of mine received this > autoremoval warning. Usually I try to take action on it. > > I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the > packaging standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes maintained > on Salsa, usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically removing the smell > from the package). I decided for the latter but at the same time I > was aware that I violated the rules we gave given each other. FWIW I also started work on xdelta3 when I saw the removal warning for installation-guide, but when I got to the point of creating a repo on salsa you'd beaten me to it by about an hour :-) I'd gone for a slightly lighter-touch approach, in that I'd only done about half of what you'd done, but having looked, you had clearly done a much more thorough job, and I had nothing to add. I had replaced CDBS with dh simply because CDBS was FTBFS, and was only a minimal 2-includes rules file, so it wasn't really contributing anything that would justify working out how to fix it. > Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made > me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator > of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary > work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the discussion > about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell from packages > is accepted. Given that the bug that's threatening its removal (#965883) has been ignored for almost 2 years, and is about the fact that it had a dh compat version of 5, which is completely trivial to fix, so the package certainly has the look of having been abandoned, which is why I think it's fine to do what you did, and I think you did a very good job of it. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Quoting Andreas Tille (2022-02-25 09:22:38) > Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58:12PM +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: > > > This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has > > > uploaded a fixed xdelta3 package today. > > > > Now that I know that the new xdelta3 is uploaded, I am OK. > > BTW, I stumbled upon xdelta3 since also a package of mine received > this autoremoval warning. Usually I try to take action on it. > > I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the > packaging standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes > maintained on Salsa, usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically > removing the smell from the package). I decided for the latter but at > the same time I was aware that I violated the rules we gave given each > other. > > Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made > me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator > of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary > work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the > discussion about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell > from packages is accepted. Do you mean to say above that "smell removal" is somehow not an NMU?!? Seems to me that these change simply fit this > fixes for trivial bugs that block a transition, [where] it is > desirable that the fixed package reaches unstable sooner [than 10 > days]. as written at https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu I would certainly be frustrated if someone fast-tracked an NMU with structural changes like switching to short-form dh, with the reasoning that "the packaged had a smell to it", for a package that I maintain. I recall that we have discussed which packaging style to recommened someone that has no strong opinion, but I am unaware that we have decided that "smelly" packages are now somehow "outlawed" in the sense that they don't need *exactly* the same caution as any other NMU. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Is removing smell from packages OK? (Was: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883")
Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:58:12PM +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: > > This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has uploaded a fixed > > xdelta3 package today. > > Now that I know that the new xdelta3 is uploaded, I am OK. BTW, I stumbled upon xdelta3 since also a package of mine received this autoremoval warning. Usually I try to take action on it. I had to decide between a "proper NMU" and an "upload that fits the packaging standards I apply to what I upload" (which includes maintained on Salsa, usage of dh, DEP5 copyright ... basically removing the smell from the package). I decided for the latter but at the same time I was aware that I violated the rules we gave given each other. Given the fact that there was a nearly 4 year old patch (#895957) made me feel that I'm not alone with this but on the other hand the creator of the patch (thanks Jeremy for doing at least half of the necessary work) hesitated to upload his work. This brings up again the discussion about how much changes are allowed to simply remove smell from packages is accepted. Kind regards Andreas. According to https://trends.debian.net/packages-with-smells-sorted-by-maintainer.txt xdelta3 had the following issues which are fixed now: xdelta3 debhelper compatibility level: 5 (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1) xdelta3 should switch to dh. Current build system: cdbs (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1) xdelta3 does not use a VCS for package maintenance. should switch to git on salsa or dgit. (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1) xdelta3 does not use the machine-readable copyright format. (source version: 3.0.11-dfsg-1) -- http://fam-tille.de
