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. Cheers, Bill
