On 2013-03-16 12:13, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The current NMU guidelines[1] discourage fixing cosmetic issues or
changing the packaging style in an NMU. The reason for that is that
such changes are often a matter of taste (though there are
exceptions,
such as the standardization of debian/control fields - going from
X-Vcs-* to Vcs-*).
I only intended to include distribution-wide changes that have already
been agreed as goals. Even where everyone has agreed on a change, we
are often quite slow to adapt all packages. The classic example is the
/usr/doc transition, but I don't think we've really solved the problem
since then, just made it less bad by more use of helpers.
My suggestion was only sometimes to accelerate further our existing
methods. Pushing more "standardisation" could be worthwhile in some
cases, but is a separate debate.
Could you give examples of specific distribution-wide changes that
you
think we should authorize via NMUs?
I am not trying to push specific technical changes, only to suggest
that we shouldn't assume that distribution-wide changes need to wait for
the slowest maintainers. (And I don't think that people really assume
this currently, in fact; already for each such change a few NMUs would
be likely eventually.)
For example, would that apply to debhelper -> dh conversions? To 1.0
->
3.0 (quilt)?
Only if we had already reached agreement that these are goals we were
moving towards. At that point, they would stop being merely matters of
taste/cosmetic.
Specifically, how do you think we can decide to authorize NMUs for a
specific distribution-wide changeover?
Changes should be decided in the same ways we already decide about
transitions and policy.
The NMU-encouragement aspect itself I would expect to be linked to the
release team.
--
Moray
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/8b099a482276ea4ea2bb90c1bd404...@www.morayallan.com
