[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] https-finder: membership please :)

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:03:35 Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 
> Thanks. The repository just contains the debian/ directory. All other
> pkg-mozext repositories store the upstream code in their git
> repositories using a upstream and master branch. May I ask you to do the
> same?

Sure if that is the team's preference.


> > > There is a newer standards version available.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate a bit please?
> > 
> > "Standards-Version: 3.9.4" is the current one, right?
> 
> Yes. The package from mentors had 3.9.3 as Standards-Version.

No it didn't. I don't know where you get it from but the page 

	https://mentors.debian.net/package/https-finder

evidently show

	W: newer-standards-version
	3.9.4 (current is 3.9.3)

for all uploaded versions. As you can imagine I uploaded package to mentors 
immediately after ITP bug was assigned -- there is no commit updating 
standards version.


> 
> > > Do you know wrap-and-sort?
> > 
> > Now I know, thanks to your hint. :)
> 
> Good. May I ask you to run it?

Sorry, I don't like the change that it does. 
If that's so important for you, I don't mind if you do it.


> > > You can drop the comments from debian/rules and debian/watch.
> > 
> > I prefer to keep them. I specifically put those minimum comments there as
> > I think they are useful. We won't gain much by dropping few lines...
> 
> We would gain a faster scanning of the content with less clutter. 25% or
> 33% less lines to read. The comments in debian/rules and debian/watch
> should explain special cases or stuff a random packager does not know.

Random packager may not remember where to look for help regarding debian/watch 
file.


> 
> DH_VERBOSE is documented in the man page of debhelper. It is not
> specific to your package.

Yes and I'd like to keep it commented in case someone (including myself) needs 
to easily increase build verbosity.


> 
> debian/watch is the watch file used by uscan. This is common knowledge
> and probably documented in different places. The empty lines could be
> trimmed, too.

Still I wish I could avoid discussions regarding comments. Generally comments 
are good. It's the lack of comments (or incorrect comments) could be harmful 
which is certainly not the case here.


> 
> I had the same opinion as you in the beginning and my sponsors ask me to
> drop these kind of comments.

Not all sponsors agreed with crusade against comments when there is no harm 
from them.

Let's spend out time for something productive shall we?


Regards,
Dmitry.