Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:50:02 +0200
Message-ID: <An3gC-5RT-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <AmJrA-2fD-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <AmZG1-3Ec-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <An3gC-5RT-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart13063993.ZS0z6ZkTq0"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 64
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12697

--nextPart13063993.ZS0z6ZkTq0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Monday, June 29, 2020 7:53:46 AM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 6/29/20 12:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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:
> >>> 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.
> I'm not maintaining OpenStack through the official backports channel,
> because OpenStack users need to have access to all versions of OpenStack
> backported to the current Stable. These backports are available through
> a debian.net channel (available using extrepo).
> 
> Therefore, the debhelper backport is not available in my build
> environment unless I explicitly do some work to make this happen (and
> Ondrej is aware of that). Just bumping the debhelper version (and
> without a good reason to do so) just add some unnecessary work
> maintaining the debhelper backport for me. By all means, let's bump to
> version 12. But why version 13 if you don't need the added features?
> This makes no sense to me.

Since you are maintaining an external backports repository, I think it's 
perfectly reasonable to expect packages that would work with Debian Backports 
to be supported.  One debhelper upload per compat level doesn't seem like 
enough work to be worth all this complaining.

Scott K
--nextPart13063993.ZS0z6ZkTq0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=w1gm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart13063993.ZS0z6ZkTq0--