Bug#953629: debian-policy: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0 native packages
Felix Lechner writes ("debian-policy: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0 native packages"):
> As a Lintian maintainer, I would like to express support for Ian's
> effort to remove restrictions on Debian version strings.
>
> Unlike Ian, however, I also believe all packages should be converted
> to format 3.0. A package's 'nativeness' is then declared explicitly,
> and does not have to be inferred from the version string.
On 1.0 vs 3.0:
I agree that the nativeness should be declared explicitly. If there
were a 3.0 format which was strictly superior to 1.0-with-diff then I
would have no objection to deprecating 1.0-with-diff. But sadly there
isn't.
The problem is that `3.0 (quilt)' has both advantages (eg that
`nativeness' is declared explicitly) and disadvantages (patches stored
in the tree, complex interactions with dpkg-source, cannot handle
packages whose upstream contains a .pc directory, very confusing to
those new to Debian, ...). Many of these disadvantages are inherent
in the design of `3.0 (quilt)'. A peruse of the dpkg-source bug list
shows that it's not just me who sees problems with `3.0 (quilt)'.[1]
Whether to choose one set of disadvantages, or another set, should be
a workflow choice for the maintainer.
Obviously it would be possible for there to be a new format of some
kind (maybe something like a `3.0 (diff)') which would address these
issues. But the dpkg maintainers haven't evidently haven't felt such
a thing to be an appropriate part of their programme to abolish 1.0,
since they haven't provided it in all these years.
As for `3.0 (native)', it has one serious disadvantage: dpkg-source
has been programmed to reject version numbers with a Debian revision.
If that restriction were relaxed, `3.0 (native)' would be a strictly
superior drop-in replacement for 1.0-native and I doubt anyone would
have any objection to phasingt 1.0-native out completely.
Thanks,
Ian.
[1] I do feel I need to say that `3.0 (quilt)' is a massive
improvement over what was being done before its introduction. I can
quite see why it was designed the way it was.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: