Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Talbert Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Maintaining all of the testing-cabal packages under the OpenStack team Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:20:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Jun 29 14:18:39 2020 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.179 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6 Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=techie.net; s=default; t=1593440277; bh=x1WVpf7pOOrss6jiPXbozq0zYVuTAn5kPQZyG3VGggE=; h=Date:From:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bPmuUQN/t3q1sFi/Pjx5nuQ6YCqBTP3TEp1RYOBoKbqbP4dHjMeQnUVIEXqWQCUAB T9HAbq6sIapAaD7JFCIu3bSHhQmsseDjirekpNAW1nB+9z9hzy89eNKdLJnYw6WJHO OgvhfjEZbzq9j54xSWYSZ2g/VX/1qF8s7ygofw30= X-X-Sender: talbert@bear.techie.net User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18416 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/alpine.DEB.2.21.2006291017090.3677@bear.techie.net Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 32 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:17:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <10f32e46-e9e5-acbe-739f-fe563da025e3@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12695 On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman 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. Can you elaborate on other reasons not the upgrade the compat levels? Scott