On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> If a package hasn't been uploaded for 7 years, then:
>
> * At least some of its binary packages were probably built by the
> uploader, not on a buildd
> * If it's written in C or C++, it hasn't been built with all the
> curren
Le mardi, 14 avril 2020, 13.12:55 h CEST Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > One could expect from maintainers that they check their packages for
> > compliance regularly and that they document that.
>
> Perhaps, but it is *also* documented that an upload just to bump the
> Standards-Version is severely
On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 20:32 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 14/04/20 at 19:40 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > I think we should be rebuilding everything at least once per release
> > > cycle, so we don't have a nasty surprise when these "mature" packages
> > > need bug fixes.
> >
> > There's e
On 14/04/20 at 19:40 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > I think we should be rebuilding everything at least once per release
> > cycle, so we don't have a nasty surprise when these "mature" packages
> > need bug fixes.
>
> There's enough automated testing to spot FTBFS, thus rebuilding would only
> r
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 13:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Perhaps, but it is *also* documented that an upload just to bump the
> > Standards-Version is severely frowned upon. If there is no other reason
> > to upload in 7 years, t
On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 13:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:11:57PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
[...]
> > One could expect from maintainers that they check their packages for
> > compliance regularly and that they document that.
>
> Perhaps, but it is *also* documented t
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:11:57PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:03:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> Adam Borowski writes:
> >> > Idea: perhaps we could make no unrestricted (maintainer, team, or QA)
> >> > upload
> >> > for 10 years a
Hi Jonas and -devel,
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2020-04-11 17:20:48)
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:10:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:41:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > > https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data unti
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:11:57PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> One could expect from maintainers that they check their packages for
> compliance regularly and that they document that. For a package that had no
> documented check for seven years it is OK to file an RC bug in order to
> clarify the
On April 12, 2020 7:11:57 PM UTC, Ole Streicher wrote:
>Wouter Verhelst writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:03:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Adam Borowski writes:
>>> > Idea: perhaps we could make no unrestricted (maintainer, team, or
>QA) upload
>>> > for 10 years a RC bug on its ow
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:03:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Adam Borowski writes:
>> > Idea: perhaps we could make no unrestricted (maintainer, team, or QA)
>> > upload
>> > for 10 years a RC bug on its own? That threshold could then be gradually
>> > reduced to
On 11.04.20 17:20, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:10:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:41:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
>>
>> There is a significant bump in the number
Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2020-04-11 17:20:48)
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:10:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:41:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
> >
> > There is a significant bump in
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:10:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:41:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
>
> There is a significant bump in the number of co-maintained packages
> during the buste
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:41:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
There is a significant bump in the number of co-maintained packages
during the buster release cycle. It is not at all clear to me what
happened there.
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:03:09PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > Idea: perhaps we could make no unrestricted (maintainer, team, or QA) upload
> > for 10 years a RC bug on its own? That threshold could then be gradually
> > reduced to eg. 5 years, as worst offenders get f
On Apr 04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Some of the technical debt is "doing harm" in the sense that we will
> have work around and deprecated code that linger and slow down our work
> on improving Debian.
You have cited specific issues which cause troubles, which is quite
different from just removing
Hello,
On Sat 04 Apr 2020 at 08:17PM +02, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [explanation]
>
> Therefore, I would like us to acknowledge the fact that technical debt
> is doing harm in that it has a cost for our contributors. But at the
> same time, I know it is hard to compare objectively to the cost of th
Adam Borowski writes:
> Idea: perhaps we could make no unrestricted (maintainer, team, or QA) upload
> for 10 years a RC bug on its own? That threshold could then be gradually
> reduced to eg. 5 years, as worst offenders get fixed.
One could deprecate old Standards-Version and require a version
Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 04 Apr 2020 at 09:28AM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>> Well, no, there doesn't seem to be any serious user-visible issues.
>>
>> That's why I keep wondering whether it makes sense to just keep all this
>> technical debt around.
>
> It could be useful to someone,
Hello,
On Sat 04 Apr 2020 at 09:28AM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Well, no, there doesn't seem to be any serious user-visible issues.
>
> That's why I keep wondering whether it makes sense to just keep all this
> technical debt around.
It could be useful to someone, and it is not clear that it i
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 09:37:16AM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 4/4/20 9:28 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 04/04/20 at 08:09 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >>> I keep wondering if we should make an effort to remove from testing
> >>> packages whose packaging 'style' is clearly outdated,
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 11:43:21AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 at 08:09:34 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > On 03-04-2020 22:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > - first, one can see how the number of package in testing decreases
> > > slowly during freezes, as broken packages are
On Sat, 04 Apr 2020 at 08:09:34 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 03-04-2020 22:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - first, one can see how the number of package in testing decreases
> > slowly during freezes, as broken packages are removed
>
> And interesting to see that this hardly happened during the
On 4/4/20 9:28 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 04/04/20 at 08:09 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>>> I keep wondering if we should make an effort to remove from testing
>>> packages whose packaging 'style' is clearly outdated, such as packages
>>> not updated since 2004 ('beav' is an example)...
>>
>> Is
On 04/04/20 at 08:09 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> On 03-04-2020 22:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There are a few things that strike me:
> >
> > - first, one can see how the number of package in testing decreases
> > slowly during freezes, as broken packages are removed
>
> And inte
Hi Lucas
On 03-04-2020 22:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are a few things that strike me:
>
> - first, one can see how the number of package in testing decreases
> slowly during freezes, as broken packages are removed
And interesting to see that this hardly happened during the last freeze.
Hi,
https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
The main change is that graphs are now displayed by default for Debian
'testing' (thus hiding broken packages in unstable only). Graphs for
'unstable' are still available.
There are a few things that strike me:
- first
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("trends.debian.net updated"):
> I updated https://trends.debian.net .
This is very cool and I wasn't even aware it existed! Yay!
I have one quibble which I'm not sure how to address and, relatedly, a
feature request.
The feature request first. Wo
Hi,
I updated https://trends.debian.net .
Main changes:
* Refreshed data (up to July 2019)
* Added data about DEP5 copyright format adoption
* Added data about autopkgtest adoption
* Various minor changes
Now is probably a good time to go through smells in your packages and
update them to newer
30 matches
Mail list logo
