Hi Étienne, Am Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:37:59AM +0100 schrieb Étienne Mollier: > > > Instead of restricting collaboration, we could let policy encourage > > > maintainers to state such constraints in debian/README.DPT and ask team > > > members to check that file before they team-upload. > > > > I think this is a very good idea. In case MR[1] will be accepted this > > should be added to the policy as well. I'm not sure whether the > > "Maintainership" paragraph is the best place to add this. I wonder if > > you (or someone with the same doubts) might want to suggest another MR > > to add this debian/README.DPT feature. > > Policy changes aside, (Thus changed subject. ;-) )
> I think it could be useful for the > routine-update command to stop when such file is hit, in order > to raise the importance that the package has quirks, and should > not be casually updated without involved scrutiny. I wonder > whether this can be generalized, like if d/README.source file is > present? (Although the latter use is codified[2] and I'm not > confident it is 100% suitable for such purpose: I see many such > files on my radar which do not necessarily hint for quirks.) > > Of course this could be overred with a --readme-reviewed flag > once ready to finalize the package with automation for instance. I like all your suggestions. When reading Timo's suggestion about debian/README.DPT I also thought about rather using the more generic debian/README.source. In any case I agree that routine-update should respect such debian/README.* (except debian/README.Debian which is user oriented). I admit I like this kind of constructive discussion. Kind regards Andreas. > > [1] > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/20 > [2]: > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#source-package-handling-debian-readme-source -- http://fam-tille.de
