On 07/04/24 23:11, Bill Allombert wrote:
What is your opinion about pushing logtool to Salsa?
Not speaking for logtool obviously, but maintaining simple packages on salsa is
just useless bureaucracy.
As a contributor, having a package on salsa is extremely useful, far
from "useless".
By clicking on "fork" (or running the equivalent CLI command) I get a
copy of the package, with all its history, a Debian-specific CI, the
ability to work on different features or bug fixes at the same time and
independently from one another, the possibility to send a merge request,
that can be annotate line-by-line by all other Debian contributors.
A package with a repo on salsa is sending a clean message: go away, I
don't want your contribution.
Most of the actual packager work is not reflected in the source
package. Testing that the package integrates well with the rest of
Debian,
That time is better invested writing autopkgtests and letting Salsa-CI
and debci run the tests. Having autopkgtests also lowers the barrier to
contribute because the contributors can now be more confident of the
fact that their changes did not cause any issue.
replying to bug reports,
Not affected by having a repo on salsa.
communicating with upstream etc.
Upstream that in 99% of the cases uses a git repo.
I maintain a number of packages. Some are on Salsa, some are not, some are team
maintained, some are not, some use dh, some use debhelper etc.
This is a matter of efficiency, one size does not fit all.
The lack of a standardized sanctioned workflow is the main reason
(together with unresponsive maintainers) why big cross-distro changes
are nigh impossible to carry out. I would not classify it as a big
advantage.
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
