On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Presumably dpkg maintainers. I've long suspected that the main reason > they chose not to add tar.bz2 to format 1.0 is, if they did, a lot of > us would have no reason to want format 3.0. Many packagers don't need > multiple tarballs or non-text files, and are quite happy to 'include > /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make' by hand. We don't find it hard to extract > an NMU diff even if it wasn't posted to the bug as it should be. It's > hard enough to convince us to want 3.0 even with tar.bz2 support. All this is getting a bit FUD-ish, can we please stop here? Format 3.0 is more than .bz2 support. To me both the support of multiple tarballs and that of binary files in diffs look like significant improvements. Similarly, the knowledge of different patches by dpkg itself sounds like the proper way of doing things, instead of encoding individual patches several times by the means of nested tools, without even a lingua franca layer shared by all patch systems (you know, for instance, how annoying is to have to support different patch systems in patch-tracker.d.o?). All in all, the complaints I've been reading in this thread are about suboptimal support in our _present_ toolchain for the new format. Well, that's quite normal: the format is young. Maybe the impact analysis has not been as thorough as it could have been, but the preliminary FTBFS analysis was quite good in fact, and has minimized the introduction of RC bugs due to the introduced new features. Possibly most reported annoyances could have been avoided *if* the people who are complaining now had tested 3.0-support before it hit unstable (packages have been RFC-ed quite in advance and have been made available via experimental). Every remaining misbehaviors are bugs, of course, but not that serious (as far as I've read in this thread): report them, provide patches, and be happy. That would be terribly more useful than trying hard to make everybody believe 3.0 is unnecessary and/or seriously-buggy, which IME it is not, as confirmed by the current acceptance rate [1]. Finally, nobody is forced to use it: if you don't like it, just avoid using it. Cheers. [1] http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/ PS the post of course is not aimed at you, Peter, in particular -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature