Re: Misc developer news (#21)
Alexander Wirt schrieb am Saturday, den 20. February 2010:
> Mike Hommey schrieb am Saturday, den 20. February 2010:
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:03:10AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:51:11 +0100, Raphael Hertzog
> > > <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > >On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:08:16PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > >> > * More than 1000 source packages are already using the new source
> > > >> > formats "3.0 (quilt)" and "3.0 (native)". Have you updated your own
> > > >> > packages already?
> > > >>
> > > >> Why should I?
> > > >
> > > >http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0#WhyshouldIconvertmypackageto3.0.28quilt.29format.3F
> > >
Please forget my previous mail, after reading it again I detected some lack
of coffee in my english (in fact weasel detected it). So let me rephrase my
Currently I don't see much reasons to convert most 1.0 packages to 3.0. I
don't see any advantages for packages which already have a patchsystem and
which only have one upstream source.
I'm still looking for reasons to convert to 3.0.
Things would be much easier for starters if dpkg would ship its own patch
helpers like push, pop and create patch. A 3.0 format which is working out of
the box without installing quilt and without the need to set QUILT_PATCHES
would be a real benefit for everybody.
Also the dpkg maintainer shouldn't beg maintainers to switch 3.0. If the
format has advantages and works without problems people will switch
automatically. And the last thing I want to see is that NMUs (or binNMUs)
convert a package to 3.0 unless the maintainer explicitly agreed to it.