Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12691

Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team

From Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups linux.debian.maint.python
Subject Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team
Date 2020-06-29 13:00 +0200
Message-ID <AmZG1-3Ec-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <AmJrA-2fD-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <AmVVL-1mk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <AmZG1-3Ec-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw



On June 29, 2020 10:12:49 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>On 6/29/20 8:34 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote:
...
>>     More over, mock debhelper was upgraded to 13, for no apparent
>reason
>>     (yet another "cosmetic fix" that isn't helping?). I'd like to
>remind
>>     everyone that, increasing debhelper compat version to a number
>that
>>     isn't in stable, without a specific reason (like the need of a
>specific
>>     feature that wasn't there before) is just annoying for anyone
>>     maintaining backports. That's truth even for when debhelper
>itself is
>>     backported to oldstable (it's always nicer to be able to build a
>>     backport without requiring another backport at build time).
>> 
>> nope, this is not true. Using the newest debhelper compat level is
>> recommended, see man page. There is no reason to __not__ upgrade
>> debhelper compat level. I will always upgrade debhelper in my
>packages
>> to the newest debhelper as soon as possible. Please newer downgrade
>> debhelper in my packages again without asking.
>
>I don't agree this is best practice when backports are to be expected.

I'm substantially less enthusiastic about bumping compat levels than Ondrej, but since debhelper 13 is available in buster-backports, backporting is unrelated to whether it's a good idea or not.

Scott K

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2020-06-29 09:00 +0200
  Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-06-29 13:00 +0200
    Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack  team Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> - 2020-06-29 16:20 +0200
      Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-06-29 16:40 +0200
        Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack  team Jean-Philippe MENGUAL <jpmengual@debian.org> - 2020-08-12 19:00 +0200
    Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-06-29 16:50 +0200
  Re: pybuild vs os-pkg-tools [was: Maintaining all of the  testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2020-07-07 08:40 +0200
    Re: pybuild vs os-pkg-tools [was: Maintaining all of the  testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2020-07-08 13:10 +0200

csiph-web