On 08/05/25 at 18:50 +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > Le Thu, May 08, 2025 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > 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. > > The point of this sentence is to define what is non-consensual in the > first place. Changing the packaging style means the NMU diff will be > difficult to review.
It don't think that it's about the ability to review the diff. If a NMU involves changing the packaging style _and_ making other changes, it's also possible to publish the changes somewhere as a serie of patches rather than as a single patch. Lucas
