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

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #117174

Re: ITN procedure?

From Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.devel
Subject Re: ITN procedure?
Date 2025-05-09 09:50 +0200
Message-ID <KKqEx-1NMA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <KKaT7-1D7T-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <KKek1-1Fwt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <KKeDn-1FGa-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <KKfzr-1Gjy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <KKnnj-1LG4-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/05/25 at 06:10 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 09:56:47PM +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> > > The point of this sentence is to define what is non-consensual in the
> > > first place. Changing the packaging style means the NMU diff will be
> > > difficult to review.
> > 
> > It don't think that it's about the ability to review the diff.
> 
> The goal of the Bug of the Day initiative--through which the mentioned
> NMUs were prepared--is to reduce packaging smells[1], which are:
> 
>   1. Debhelper compatibility level: lower than 9 is a smell (we set 13)
>   2. Build system: not using dh is a smell.
>   3. Source format and patch system: not using 3.0 is a smell
>   4. VCS: not using Git and Salsa is a smell (except if the package is using dgit).
> 
> > If a NMU involves changing the packaging style _and_ making other changes,
> > it's also possible to publish the changes somewhere as a serie of patches
> > rather than as a single patch.
> 
> Fixing item 4 provides a well-known and convenient way to publish all
> patches, along with build logs automatically generated by Salsa CI.

I'm obviously a bit biaised since I authored trends.debian.net and thus
arbitrarily decided of that list of « smells ». I agree with you that the
first three items are things that it is reasonable to fix in an NMU
(except in special cases, for example if the package is team-maintained,
and the the team standardizes on using cdbs or source format 1.0).

However, I have doubts about (4), since there's still so many different
workflows to use Git+Salsa.

Also, while (1-3) are things that can be worked on, sent to DELAYED/x,
and cancelled if the maintainer disagrees, one cannot really do the same
with switching to Git.

Lucas

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

Thread

ITN procedure? Phil Wyett <philip.wyett@kathenas.org> - 2025-05-07 09:40 +0200
  Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2025-05-07 17:20 +0200
    Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-07 17:50 +0200
      Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-07 19:00 +0200
        Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-07 20:00 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-05-07 23:30 +0200
        Re: ITN procedure? Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian@mdcc.cx> - 2025-05-08 06:10 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 08:20 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-08 08:50 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Phil Wyett <philip.wyett@kathenas.org> - 2025-05-08 09:30 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 09:10 +0200
            Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 10:00 +0200
              Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN  procedure?) Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 10:20 +0200
                Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN  procedure?) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 10:50 +0200
                Re: Categorially refusing to exercise DPL powers (was: ITN procedure?) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 21:40 +0200
      Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-07 21:20 +0200
        Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-07 22:30 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 00:40 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 02:00 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 04:40 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2025-05-11 12:10 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 10:10 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 10:50 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 11:20 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 10:50 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 10:10 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 10:30 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 10:40 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Alexandre Detiste <alexandre.detiste@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 10:50 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> - 2025-05-08 17:00 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 20:40 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 20:50 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 21:00 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-08 22:00 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-09 06:20 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-09 09:50 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-09 10:30 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-09 11:30 +0200
                RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-09 10:30 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-09 12:50 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-09 13:00 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> - 2025-05-10 12:30 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-11 22:40 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-11 23:40 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 00:00 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 00:30 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 01:00 +0200
                git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-12 09:50 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> - 2025-05-12 10:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-12 10:40 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> - 2025-05-12 11:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-12 13:20 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> - 2025-05-12 13:30 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-12 14:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-14 10:50 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> - 2025-05-14 11:20 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-05-14 11:30 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference Ananthu C V <weepingclown@disroot.org> - 2025-05-14 12:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> - 2025-05-14 12:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Peter B <peter@pblackman.plus.com> - 2025-05-14 12:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-14 13:50 +0200
                debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific git  tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2025-05-14 14:30 +0200
                Re: debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific git  tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-14 21:00 +0200
                Re: debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific git  tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-05-18 22:50 +0200
                Re: debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific  git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-21 14:50 +0200
                Re: debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific git  tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-05-26 13:20 +0200
                Re: debian/upstream/metadata (Re: git branches vs debian specific  git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-26 13:50 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2025-05-14 11:50 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> - 2025-05-14 12:30 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> - 2025-05-14 11:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2025-05-17 01:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 23:40 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-13 17:50 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-12 11:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2025-05-12 10:30 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 10:40 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 12:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 12:40 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2025-05-13 16:40 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-05-13 17:20 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-05-13 18:20 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 15:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-05-12 17:00 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 20:20 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 23:30 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> - 2025-05-16 16:10 +0200
                Re: git branches vs debian specific git tools (Re: RFC for changes  regarding NMU in developers reference gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2025-05-18 16:20 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?) Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> - 2025-05-11 23:50 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 10:10 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> - 2025-05-14 09:50 +0200
                Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN  procedure?) Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2025-05-14 10:30 +0200
              Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-08 11:30 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 14:30 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-05-08 15:40 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 18:00 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2025-05-08 18:50 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 21:10 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-05-08 21:20 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2025-05-09 19:20 +0200
                Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-12 15:50 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-08 10:10 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-08 11:00 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2025-05-10 12:30 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-05-12 17:00 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure - more words, fewer acronyms please? Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2025-05-12 19:20 +0200
                Re: ITN procedure - more words, fewer acronyms please? Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2025-05-13 15:50 +0200
          Re: ITN procedure? thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-05-08 13:40 +0200
            Re: ITN procedure? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-05-08 13:50 +0200
              Re: ITN procedure? thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-05-08 14:00 +0200
      Re: ITN procedure? gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2025-05-07 22:50 +0200

csiph-web