[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1007717: marked as done (Native source package format with non-native version)

Your message dated Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:23:25 -0700
with message-id <87v8smkrcy.fsf@athena.silentflame.com>
and subject line Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version
has caused the Debian Bug report #1007717,
regarding Native source package format with non-native version
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1007717: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007717
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: tech-ctte

(Sorry for the resend, this should have gone to the BTS the first
time; have fixed a slip in the wording.)

Please:

Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least:

 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with
    a native format, but a non-native version number.

 2. Request that the dpkg maintainer relax the restriction which
    prevents the use of 3.0 native with Debian revision.

 3. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not
    to have been filed against packages where simply changing the
    source format does not currently work.  That would include at
    least 1.0 native packages with Debian revisions.

Part II - bless continued use of 1.0-with-diff, for now at least:

 4. Declare that sometimes the use of 1.0-with-diff can be the best
    tradeoff between different considerations.  In particular,
    because 1.0 is the only format which botH:
     (a) Optimises bandwidth and storage by reusing the upstream 
         data when it hasn't changed.
     (b) Avoids polluting the working tree (package source code)
         with [patches], which cause trouble especially with
	 git-based workflows.

 5. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not
    to have been filed against 1.0 with diff packages, at least
    without some further filter.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
With three first preference votes for A and five first preference votes
for C, the outcome is no longer in doubt.  Therefore, using its powers
under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee issues the following
advice:

  1. It is not a bug of any severity for a package with a non-native
     version number to use a native source package format.

  2. Thus, we think that dpkg shouldn't issue warnings, or otherwise
     complain, when a non-native version number is used w/ 3.0 (native).

  3. We suggest that the wontfix tag on #737634 be reconsidered.

  4. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
     1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package,
     including, but not limited to, git-first packaging workflows.
     However, we recommend discontinuing use of 1.0-with-diff in other
     circumstances, to simplify the contents of the archive.

     This is because there is currently no other source format which is
     such that avoid both (i) uploading the whole source, including
     upstream, for every upload; and (ii) having to maintain
     debian/patches/ inside the package tree.

  5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF.

-- 
Sean Whitton

--- End Message ---
Reply to: