Hi Jonas,
Am Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 02:12:21PM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>
> Quoting Andreas Tille (2024-08-16 11:44:38)
> > I prefer having no debian/gbp.conf at all in case the repository
> > layout would fit team policy.
>
> I understand that it would be lovely if git-buildpackage supported DEP14
> without you needing to touch a thousand packages.
I tried to express: I'm more than willing to convert all packages where
I'm Uploader (most preferably) if DEP14 is accepted.
> But do you really put on your DPL hat and raise that wishlist bug to a
> matter for d-devel to debate and try solve?
I tried to raise my DPL hat against my own obvious interest to rather do
nothing. In other words: As DPL I consider DEP14 an advantage and
would defend this even against my own interest.
> Please do consider the simpler approach here:
>
> Step one: Discuss on d-devel if DEP14 can be accepted as-is.
... which I do.
> Step two: Discuss in bugreports how various tools might be improved for
> as exciting a user experience with DEP14 as sensible for each tool.
In some discussions (written and aural at DebConf) I heard the opinion
that a precondition for DEP-14 would be git-buildpackage support. I
simply picked up this opinion as some potential reason why there is no
progress for DEP-14. I do not think so which is why I wrote "If DEP14
might be accepted the motivation to fix bug #829444 would be probably
way higher." Seems my wording was miserable enough to make you believe
I would be in contrast to your suggestion, which is actually not.
BTW, I do not think that the DPL hat can be (mis)used to draw technical
decisions. I just wanted to know what might be the blocker for some
decision that is pending since a long time. I'd be happy if you would
understand that I mentioned my role only for the sake to learn about
blockers, not to push into any direction.
> Personally, I think DEP14 is usable as is, and look forward to have it
> formally be declared done.
Cool. So lets do this.
> I do not, however, understand the details of
> the DEP procedures well, however, so look forward to feedback from
> others beter understanding those details.
Same here.
> ...but not details on git-buildpackage: Details on the formal DEP
> procedures - unless those really are super intertwined. Until someone
> knowledgable on DEP procedures explains how that necessitates solving
> specific tooling issues as well, please pretty please discuss tooling
> details, like git-buildpackage migration handling and/or default
> settings, at the appropriate bugreports *without* cross-posting to
> d-devel.
I'm not fully sure why git-buildpackage should not be discussed here in
a possible different thread. However, I agree that we can finalise the
formal DEP process without mixing both discussions.
Kind regards,
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
