Bug#1007717: Updated draft resolution

[Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>]

Hello,

On Tue 10 May 2022 at 05:29pm -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> At today's ctte meeting we considered whether we can start a vote on
> this, but two committee members were missing, and someone else at the
> meeting reported that they hadn't yet been able to spend enough time
> thinking through the issue to be ready to vote.
>
> We came up with the following plan.  Below I've drafted a ballot.  Once
> each of those three individuals has let me know that they've had a
> chance to catch up, I'll start a vote.  The hope is that this can happen
> well in advance of our next meeting.  So, ctte members, if I don't
> already know that you're caught up, please write to me once you are.

Unfortunately, people haven't yet indicated they're caught up.

Here's an updated ballot in light of our upcoming meeting.  I've left
space to add a 4b, if, when our current discussion is concluded, someone
would like that in addition to 4c.

~~~~~

DRAFT

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.

  4a. 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.

      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.

  4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a].

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

 Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5

 Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5

 Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5

 Option N -- none of the above.

END DRAFT

-- 
Sean Whitton