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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12696

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

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Monday, June 29, 2020 10:17:57 AM EDT Scott Talbert wrote:
> 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

This is a matter of personal preference, but since the behavior of debhelper 
changes between compat versions, I prefer no to change it unless I have time 
to thoroughly QA changes in the package.  This generally means I don't change 
it often.

Unless there are issues with a specific compat level (hello compat 11) or the 
compat level has been deprecated, I tend to not to do it, but I'm generally 
pretty minimalist in my package updates.  That doesn't mean someone else is 
wrong to do so if they've checked that package is correct after the change.

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