[tryton-debian] DM for python-sql (was: Migration to alioth)

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:54:07AM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > PS: I have not forgotten tryton-modules-timesheet-cost but I'm waiting
> >     for an answer about the recompression issue.  I will not upload
> >     until you give acceptable reasons why you did the recompression which
> >     is IMHO not conform to Debian policy.
> 
> The reason for me is as obvious as it can be;):
> The discussion of reducing load of bandwith and space on the mirrors and
> installation media dates from before Debconf 2012. Daniel changed proactively
> the layout of the Tryton packages. With dpkg meanwhile using xz compression as
> its default,

Yes, this is nice.

> it is even more as logic for me to use the same compression for the
> orig tarball.

This is not a logical consequence.

> Reading [1] "Specifying better compression method: ...the author
> is tempted to turn default to xz. " points even further in this direction and
> this is written AFAICS by you ;).

This is part of my UscanEnhancement and it is *only* if there is any reason
for repackaging (like files to remove or if upstream has *.zip or so).

> So if you would accept xz (re)compression for a substantially changed tarball,
> why wouldn't you accept it for an unchanged tarball?

I explained this previously and I have no idea how to explain it again.
If you are keen on other explanations please ask on debian-devel /
debian-mentors.

> In other words: if I would
> decide to remove the .egg files from the upstream tarball (as discussed as
> one possibility in[2]), you would accept the procedure, but just recompressing
> the tarball not? 

If there are valid reasons for changing the tarball (for instance to
remove files - I wouldn't call the discussion at [2] really a consensus
but that's not me to decide) than for sure I agree with a different
compression method.  In this case you should also rename the tarball
(the just released devscripts are containing Files-Excluded which also
does the renaming but it seems specifying the compression method
specification is delayed for the next version).

> You sent me to d-devel to discuss this question. On one side I am really
> concerned to increase the load on d-devel with such (for me) nitpicking
> questions (until now no ftp master ever lost a word with respect to Tryton
> packages, neither in NEW nor in the archive),

May be they just did not noticed (like me before).

> on the other side I only will
> open questions, if I am able to participate ad hoc in the discussion. The
> latter not being the case currently, because my time slice for the work on
> Tryton in Debian is more than exhausted those last weeks. So if you absolutely
> insist on clarification on d-devel, this will be for a later moment.

I see no point in discussion each others time constraints.  I'm doing
the sponsering to the best of my knowledge and over several years I of
Debian packaging I have considered as consensus (and I'm sure the
packaging docs are reflecting this) that you should try to stick to the
original upstream source if possible.  If I face a sponsoring request
that does not fit my knowledge of good packaging practices I will not
upload.

Kind regards

        Andreas.
 
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2013/11/msg00045.html

-- 
http://fam-tille.de