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
