Op zaterdag 16 maart 2013 17:39:56 schreef Moray Allan: > 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.
Do you think that changing X-Vcs-* to Vcs-* is something Debian should actively spend cycles on NMU'ing to change? Our users will not see any impact of that, and I doubt they will reap any benefit from a more expedited /usr/doc transition. Why is this a problem? Implementing dh(1) or source format 3, notwithstanding their advantages for DD's, is successful if the generated binary packages are the same as before. Should we really focus more effort on increasing the existing convergence? As a counter point, in the current cycle I've been involved two archive-wide transitions that actually do impact the installed system: multi-arch and hardening build flags. Once the dpkg/apt infrastructure was in place, the archive-wide changes have in my opinion been reasonably successfully implemented within the timeframe of this release, with the help of them being a release goal. Why do we need more tools than we currently have? Cheers, Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
