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

Re: quilt 3.0 source format and dpkg-source/dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:29:48 +0100
Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:

> > (Personally, I'm not happy with 3.0 either, I see no sufficient
> > benefit to use it unless the upstream tarball is a .tar.bz2. It's
> > not cleaner, lsdiff -z is no different to tar -tzf. However, I will
> > do what I can to allow 3.0 to work within svn-bp for the few
> > packages that may benefit.)
> It would have been MORE than easy to have bz2 support in 1.0.

I don't doubt it.

> There is
> absolutely no reason why it needs a 3.0 just for a different
> compression. But that wasnt wanted.

Well quite, using 3.0 (quilt) merely to handle a .tar.bz2 is not
following the spirit of format 3.0, merely using (abusing?) it. A few
packages that I have converted also had patches, so I went through the
hassle of converting CDBS patches to quilt patches but removed all the
DEP-3 bloat.

However, I've decided not to migrate my other packages that continue to
use .tar.gz upstream to 3.0, whether those packages use patches or not.
I think there was only one package where a .tar.gz was used but where
quilt was easier to use for future patches than the old CDBS system,
but then the CDBS patch system I was using is described as
simple-patchsys and I was trying to use it for some complex patching
and quilt would have been a usable alternative even if I'd kept that
package with 1.0 and gone to debhelper 7 instead. Of course, once those
patches are effected upstream, I could put that package back to dpkg
source format 1.0, as is my preference.

So, out of 67 packages I maintain in Debian, only ~7 are going to
support dpkg source format 3.0, whether 3.0 becomes the "default" or
not. I've no intention of converting packages unnecessarily or where
there is no merit. I'll do whatever is needed to force format 1.0 when
the time comes - I see that as preferable. I don't see how 1.0 can ever
be declared "unsupported", just "not the default" - at least until


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpOf0QzX8eJp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: