On 08/05/25 at 16:56 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > I agree with using existing processes and I also appreciate Andreas' > initiative to improve the state of long-neglected packages. > > I believe the ITN name is a bit redundant, since our NMU process with > an upload to a delayed queue already signals an intention ahead of the > change (i.e. getting the updated package accepted to the archive) > happening. > Slightly expanding the NMU process scope would be sufficient to handle > such more intrusive changes, since we just need to cover a bigger > *update* from a *non-maintainer*.
I agree The developers-reference has this sentence: > Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged. Maybe it could be changed to: > Using NMUs to make changes that are likely to be non-consensual is > discouraged. That would allow for changes such as upgrading the packaging style from traditional debhelper to dh. > *I suggest adding a new > recommendation to the developers-reference to upload bigger NMUs to > DELAYED/15. > > As I understand, Andreas did not aim for orphaning the packages, just > offering a bigger one-off help to the maintainer and it is reasonable > to give maintainers longer time to respond in such cases. As I recall > Andeas migrated one of my sadly neglected packages to Salsa in an NMU > and I was (and still am) thankful for that. I agree as well. dev-ref has: > Other NMUs: 10 days maybe change to: > Other NMUs: 10 days to 28 days, depending on the changes (that also requires increasing the delayed queue's max delay to more than the current 15 days) Lucas
