[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#1091928: routine-update: Stop setting `Rules-Requires-Root: no`

[Niels Thykier]

Andreas Tille:
> Control: tags -1 pending
> Thanks
> 
> Hi Niels,
> 
> thanks a lot for splitting up your suggestions for routine-update into
> easily handleable bug reports.  IMHO the most important one is this one
> and so I tried to tackle it immediately.
> 

You are welcome :)

> Am Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 04:43:27PM +0100 schrieb Niels Thykier:
>>
>> Per lists.debian.org/<821041fd-b980-4506-a35a-b9826fe04500 at thykier.net>,
>> dpkg will now flip the default for Rules-Requires-Root. Therefore,
>> maintainers should no longer need to set `Rules-Requires-Root` any more when
>> omitted.
>>
>> I have filed #1091912 to have lintian stop asking maintainers to set it as
>> well.
> 
> Hope this will be dealt with soon.
> 

So do I :)

> I've pushed a commit which is not adding `Rules-Requires-Root` any more
> but rather removes it (why should a package reproduce what is default
> anyway).  Please review
> 
>     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/routine-update/-/commit/f4db74b3f6a1c62cd4a3531643589c5f0901736d
> 
> and I will upload immediately.
> 

I would keep existing instances for now. The default is only changed in 
dpkg/1.22.13, which will likely *never* be backported (dpkg is 
historically never uploaded to stable-backports). Therefore, the 
`Rules-Requires-Root: no` will simplify uploads to backports because the 
backport build identical to the sid/testing build in this regards.

My primary argument for asking tools to stop adding 
`Rules-Requires-Root` is that it will "soon" be noise for *most* 
packages. However, packages aiming at oldstable-backports might be happy 
with that field for another 2+ years, which to me makes it feel 
premature to automate any removal.

> BTW, routine-update is maintained in Debian Science team for historical
> reasons.  If you consider it better maintained in debian/ team I can
> move it there since team uploads by anybody are welcome in any case.
> 
> Kind regards
>      Andreas.
> 

I am not sure I have the bandwidth to help here at any grand scale of 
things nor do I use routine-update. But I appreciate the offer. Moving 
to the debian group might still have merit to you if it helps you 
attract contributors. However, I think you should be the one making the 
call, not me.

Best regards,
Niels

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20250105/9d13a746/attachment-0001.sig>