Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

To: Gioele Barabucci <gioele@svario.it>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)
From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 14:30:29 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 8a72c36c-47df-4912-a4f2-c8dfb1ef24fa@debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 67c70a9f-16c8-40e4-8d6c-b7be651d0138@svario.it>
References: <ZHOC/M6HrV/at3D/@homer.dodds.net> <ZZe7AKItC3QlSNQw@homer.dodds.net> <ZHOC/M6HrV/at3D/@homer.dodds.net> <[🔎] ca335d6f-4b94-4348-bb71-d358f38c94ed@debian.org> <[🔎] 5697fb19-2166-4b05-b57f-ed1feded75e0@debian.org> <[🔎] 67c70a9f-16c8-40e4-8d6c-b7be651d0138@svario.it>

Hi Gioele,

On 06-01-2024 14:15, Gioele Barabucci wrote:

Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandatedpackaging tooling and workflow [1,2]?


Might be, but that doesn't mean that problem goes away.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)
  - From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

References:
- Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline
  - From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
- Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline
  - From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
- Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)
  - From: Gioele Barabucci <gioele@svario.it>