Path: csiph.com!news.neodome.net!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Andreas Tille Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting change in DPT policy) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Wed Feb 28 10:52:00 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.71 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21497 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Zd8QOgk1gEr6xARX@an3as.eu Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 44 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:51:38 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15515 Hi Étienne, Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:37:59AM +0100 schrieb Étienne Mollier: > > > Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage > > > maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team > > > members to check that file before they team-upload. > > > > I think this is a very good idea. In case MR[1] will be accepted this > > should be added to the policy as well. I'm not sure whether the > > "Maintainership" paragraph is the best place to add this. I wonder if > > you (or someone with the same doubts) might want to suggest another MR > > to add this debian/README.DPT feature. > > Policy changes aside, (Thus changed subject. ;-) ) > I think it could be useful for the > routine-update command to stop when such file is hit, in order > to raise the importance that the package has quirks, and should > not be casually updated without involved scrutiny. I wonder > whether this can be generalized, like if d/README.source file is > present? (Although the latter use is codified[2] and I'm not > confident it is 100% suitable for such purpose: I see many such > files on my radar which do not necessarily hint for quirks.) > > Of course this could be overred with a --readme-reviewed flag > once ready to finalize the package with automation for instance. I like all your suggestions. When reading Timo's suggestion about debian/README.DPT I also thought about rather using the more generic debian/README.source. In any case I agree that routine-update should respect such debian/README.* (except debian/README.Debian which is user oriented). I admit I like this kind of constructive discussion. Kind regards Andreas. > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20 > [2]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#source-package-handling-debian-readme-source -- http://fam-tille.de