On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:30:28 -0700 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > this at this point. I've changed the severity to wishlist instead, > which I think more accurately reflects the current severity of this > request. That's fair. > N: missing-debian-source-format > N: > N: To allow for possible future changes in the default source format, > N: explicitly selecting a source format by creating debian/source/format > N: is recommended. > N: > N: If you don't have a reason to stay with the old format for this > N: package, please consider switching to "3.0 (quilt)" (for packages with > N: a separate upstream tarball) or to "3.0 (native)" (for Debian native > N: packages). > N: > N: If you wish to keep using the old format, please create that file and > N: put "1.0" in it to be explicit about the source package version. If > N: you have problems with the 3.0 format, the dpkg maintainers are > N: interested in hearing, at debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, the > N: (technical) reasons why the new formats do not suit you > N: > N: Refer to the dpkg-source(1) manual page and > N: http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 for details. > N: > N: Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain > > I hope this is a reasonable compromise between the various stances on the > new source format. None of this is set in stone, or has gone anywhere > other than the Lintian Git repository, and we can definitely change it > further based on additional feedback. Much improved, thank you. Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0 and that packages don't need to be changed merely to state the obvious. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpwA7CyzH1IJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature