Hi Nilesh, On 2021-11-04 13:13, Nilesh Patra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 11:48:45AM +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote: >> Maybe separate mailing lists could be enough? In the end >> upstreams mostly work on one-two source packages, and even if they >> become DMs they do not get push/upload permissions for all source >> packages of a team, do they? > > I think this point is not exactly a discussion for the mathematics team, but > pretty much several other teams (i.e separate lists, etc) > Since this looks (to me) very generic and not very specific, maybe you'd > want to ask -devel for more opinions, but.... :)
I agree, this is a topic for a separate discussion :) >>> since R packages are extremely uniform and >>> usually come with test suites that can be re-used which to some extend >>> is taking over the role of an expert knowing the software. There are >>> also not really any specific decisions to make about the packaging since >>> everything is really straightforward. >>> >>> This is absolutely different to software written in Python, Java or >>> anything else. >> >> I disagree. I find at least JavaScript and Perl packages quite uniform, >> and I have an impression that at least > > I cannot say about perl, but your argument is certainly invalid for > javascript team. > My journey to contributing in debian started with JS team, and I've been > involved there > ever since (few years by now), and no, they are _not_ uniform. > Several packages need much more work than the defaults and maintaining JS is > also more work > for more techinal reasons (like embedding node modules for instance) > > Several packages come with typescript defs, and you need to take care of them. > They come with varieties of build systems - webpack, rollup, grunt then > terser, uglifyjs for > minifying and what not. > In majority of the JS packages I've touched (several dozens by now) I almost > always had > to do something more than just running some scripts and I can attest to that. Interestingly, my experience is different. Most of JS packages I deal with are rather uniform, but maybe it is just luck. > A couple of years back, there was no pkg-js-tools (sort of a debhelper sort > of tool for JS team) and > the work was even more. Yadd later wrote this nice tool that automates a > number of tasks, and maybe that > gives you an impression that stuff is unform - sure, it has improved a lot, > but you cannot compare it with > R packages. You can maintain R packages without knowing the build system very > well, but not JS. Maybe it is just pkg-js-tools, yes. When I came to JS packaging, pkg-js-tools were already there, so I have no experience with the situation before that. Nevertheless, thanks to pkg-js-tools, JS packages look quite uniform to me now :) Apart from that, maintainers of the JS team do great deal of (seemingly semi-automated) improvements on team-maintained packages. Thus I am happy about my JS packages in JS team as they are taken care of even without my attention. > In case of R packages, dh-R takes care of literally everything. Ofcourse > there are exceptions, > but they are very rare. A template legit works just okay, always. OK, good to know. Best, Andrius
