[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: feedback for NEW packages: switch to using the BTS?



Hi Paul,

Am Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 07:13:42AM +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> 
> The packaging work is supposed to start *after* the ITP is filed,

Sure.

> so
> this is a suboptimal order to do things in and doesn't provide much
> value,

The "packaging work" to create the debian/ dir is a 1min process since
for R this is automated.  Do you expect a racing condition in this
minute? 

> except as a way to prevent people packaging the same R library
> during the wait in NEW, but the presence of the R library in the R-pkg
> team VCS already provides that, so the ITP bug isn't really needed. 

The automated process also checks existing WNPP bugs so it makes sense
to file such a bug.  Moreover it is used to document rejects.

I don't want to say that WNPP bugs are a better solution than your
proposal.  My point was simply that there is some existing relation
between BTS and NEW which might be usable or not.
 
> Even when filing ITPs before packaging, for language ecosystem teams
> where all library packages for the language go through the same team,
> team co-ordination mechanisms are probably enough of a way to prevent
> duplication of work, and that work is mostly automated anyway for
> several such teams, so the ITP bug mostly isn't really needed.

I confirm that it is not strictly needed (that's another reason why we
feel pretty safe to file the ITP after the packaging) but as I explained
it has some use anyway and since it is so brain dead simple to create we
do it.

> Some teams make exceptions for packages that aren't strictly just
> libraries; for eg Rust folks to ITPs for things that ship executables,
> so that people can hear about things they might want to use on Debian.
> 
> > That's true.  I just wanted to mention that some of your ideas
> > are in a way used even now.
> 
> Yeah, the proposal was derived from the suggestion to file ITPs for all
> NEW packages, mostly aimed at avoiding the deficiencies with that idea.

Nice.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: