Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Guidence on package development
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:20:01 +0100
Message-ID: <LY1up-900-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <LY0I1-8rN-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <LY1b3-8Cm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <LY1up-900-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org  Wed Dec  3 20:14:16 2025
Old-Return-Path: <wrar@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.998 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8y6dcWJ8MZMufvtv"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailing-List: <debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/23452
List-ID: <debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/aTCaBwZ1FfvmVKkV@belkar.wrar.name
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 47
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 01:13:59 +0500
X-Original-Message-ID: <aTCaBwZ1FfvmVKkV@belkar.wrar.name>
X-Original-References: <c0d757009ef06d9db0311baa47312c40ed693557.camel@gmail.com> <aTCV4oeGfm_CWWeY@belkar.wrar.name> <CAJcuXAB=unK7cSw=CWtauG6==yRzpZRDs=9tbrD8Hmg5BNX=6g@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:17219


--8y6dcWJ8MZMufvtv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 01:40:27AM +0530, Jai kadam wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification, but this thing is really scratching my mind
>why are we making chages in a already debinized repo?

Because your task, at the highest abstraction level, is to move the=20
packaging on top of the new upstream version, adapting it in the process=20
if needed.=20

>If a version 2 of a
>package is in upstream why would someone patch the already debinized repo
>instead of patching the new upstream and debianzing it ?

It's possible that your definitions of "patch", "debianize" and "make=20
changes" are different from the usual ones, or maybe that you are=20
misunderstanding some basic parts of the workflows involved.

--=20
WBR, wRAR

--8y6dcWJ8MZMufvtv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=as90
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8y6dcWJ8MZMufvtv--