Hi gregor, On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 05:14:45PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > BTW, your debdiffs never apply, as the packages evolve in git. E.g. > the perl-xs-dev dependency is already added, and we make also other > mass changes, and then the Debian janitor also comes along.
That's useful info and it wasn't obvious to me. Thank you for telling. > That's no big deal, I just look at your debdiffs and fix what > remains, but it would also be enough to just say "please add > <!nocheck> and perl-xs-dev" (or start from the package's git repo). Reducing the friction here obviously is a good idea, but at this point, I'm unsure how to converge. I strongly prefer working from unstable as that tends to work or has a ftbfs bug filed. What is in git tends to not work as well (at least outside the perl team). Filing a bug has a dual purpose on my side: For one thing, I transmit the message and the proposed fixed. However, it also gives me an automatic handle of when to retry the package. udd knows when a bug is fixed in unstable. Before filing a patch, I want to see that it actually works. So I end up writing the patch anyway. Not attaching it (even if it doesn't apply to git), seems less useful to me. I guess the best course of action atm is skipping perl issues. Given more time, the <!nocheck>, perl-xs-dev and multiarch hints will trickle into more packages solving a big chunk of the problem with less friction. Please let me know if you reach a different conclusion. Helmut
