Hi Stuart, Am Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:58:06AM +1100 schrieb Stuart Prescott: > > While there is a substantial overlap in the feature sets, one is not a > subset of the other. > > - routine-update does some great things like normalising packaging. That's > something Janitor can't do because people would scream about an automated > tool touching their precious whitespace. > > - Janitor applies multi-arch hints, and looks at obsolete versioned > dependencies — these are things that routine-update can't do because it > doesn't have a holistic view of the archive.
That's not true since routine-update calls the same routines as Janitor. > Janitor is also run > automatically rather than only when the maintainer is seeking to update the > package, meaning that improvements can accrue over time. IMHO that's quite some advantage. I see no relevance in changes that are just end up inside the git repository and are possibly bit-rotting there. > Janitor updates > also cause CI to be run, meaning that regressions such as a FTBFS caused by > other packages changing get spotted earlier. That's a valid point. > I don't see any reason to say that tools are mutually exclusive — let's let > Janitor make improvements and when packages need updating, we can have > routine-update make some more? As I tried to explain, routine-update does all what Janitor is doing (please let me know if not than I'd include the actual Janitor code) plus other things Janitor can't do. I'm fine with whatever the team might prefer and I can cope with Janitor changes, but its not my preference. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
