> On 07/20/2026 11:26 AM IST Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Nilesh, > > feel free (and I actually recommend) to quote me in public. > > Am Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 05:27:13AM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > I am lintian maintainer too, so I can speak here with that hat on as well. > > > > Lintian checks for salsa.debian.org/debian and git.dgit.debian.org and I > > think this > > is correct. > > Yes, this is definitely correct and I agree with this. > > > In principle, I could white-list `salsa.debian.org/debian{,-}*` but it is > > odd > > for an orphaned package to be present in a team namespace, as they are > > assumed > > to have the maintainer field set to that team. If you think lintian should > > instead > > whitelist, please let me know && file a bug as well. > > I could imagine to whitelist some teams - specifically those where the > culture is that any team member is kindly invited to upload team > packages. We had some recent discussion that the Uploaders field might > be redundant in those teams. > > While I think there are teams where this is the case I'm not sure > whether this is the case for all teams. In other words: I could have > set python-pymetar Maintiner to Debian Python Team and leave the > Uploader empty. But this triggers a lintian error (and I agree with > this as long as this is not decided). > > So I decided in this specific case for the reason I documented in > a lintian-overrides now to keep the warning. I closed lots of lintian > issues when preparing the QA upload and decided to stick with this > intentionally. > > Another consideration was that, if the package is eventually adopted, > I would expect the Python Team namespace to be the natural long-term > home for the repository. Starting out in the `debian/` namespace would > then require an additional repository move by Salsa administrators, > creating work that I hoped to avoid. > > This was my work on this package. If someone else decides it is worth > doing another QA upload to move the repository to the `debian/` > namespace instead, that's perfectly fine with me. I can also help > migrating the repository if there might be permission constraints. > > In other words: I think the Lintian warning is useful and points to the > right default. However, like many Lintian checks, there are situations > where a conscious exception is justified. In this case I considered > keeping the repository in the Python Team namespace to be the better > long-term trade-off and therefore documented that decision with a > lintian-overrides entry. > > > I feel it is better to have this package at debian namespace only, as it is > > likely to > > attract more contributors. > > Do you have any evidence or experience supporting that? I would be > interested to know whether contributors actually look for an Orphaned > package in BTS and find it whereever it might be. > > I also note that the package has already received a subsequent QA upload > while being hosted in the Python Team namespace. That does not prove > this is the optimal location, but it does suggest that the current setup > is not an obstacle to contributors performing QA work. > > > If I were to see an orphaned maintained package living > > at a team namespace, I'd be confused and probably assume that this is > > already > > maintained. I find it unlikely for anyone in python team to notice this > > particular > > instance and add themselves as uploader, and at the same time not be > > confused. > > YMMV, ofcourse. > > It would actually be interesting to know whether Alexandre found the > repository location confusing or not, since he performed a subsequent QA > upload. > > Kind regards and thanks to Tobi and you to point this out > Andreas. > > PS: As I said I think this topic is worth discussing on debian-devel > and you can feel free to quote anything from my text there. >
Moving to -devel For everyone's context: this is about a recently orphaned package that moved to the python team. This is some discussion about if orphaned packages could be moved to maintainer teams namespace instead of `debian/` namespace and whether or not lintian should be adjusted here.
