Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version
On 16/03/22 at 23:54 +0000, Wookey wrote:
> On 2022-03-16 15:29 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In practice, the vast majority of packages are maintained in git on
> > salsa. The maintainers use those git repositories as the PFM.
> > but almost everyone is already treating git as primary.
> Is this definitely true? For example: I know I'm not doing this. I did
> try, and I do have some git repos on salsa, but I've mostly given up
> with it all and stuck with uscan and tarballs and quilt (and my trusty
> 'packages' directory). It's much easier for me. (The salsa repos that
> exist for my packages are not canonical and often stale).
> I'm sure Ian is right that there is a trend towards git from tarballs
> and dscs, but I just question whether we know it is 'the vast
> majority'? Are there really now very few maintainers using the
> 'classic tooling'? How do we know?
If you look at https://trends.debian.net/#version-control-system, I
think it's fair to say that the vast majority of packages are now
maintained in git.
And if you look at the status of those repositories according to
vswatch, most of them are actively used:
udd=> select status, count(distinct source) from vcswatch group by status order by 2;
status | count
UNREL | 119
OLD | 1218
ERROR | 1328
COMMITS | 3620
NEW | 7127
OK | 17873
(the last three lines being 'normal' states.)