Re: About new source formats for packages without patches

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:

> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with
> > “absence of ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in
> > “1.0” source format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is
> > blessed or recommended in any way. To that extent, I welcome this
> > policy.
>
> Please stop misinterpreting what I say.

That's what I'm trying to do, by showing my current interpretation so it
can be corrected if necessary.

I've found it rather difficult to follow your reasoning on this, so I'm
glad for this discussion where, in response to questions and attempts at
paraphrasing, you've explained more detail about what it is you're
trying to achieve with these changes. Thank you!

> There's a default value currently and it's "1.0", and I want to remove
> the existence of a default value in the long term because it does not
> make sense to have a default value corresponding to a source format
> that is no longer recommended.

That's the part I don't see a reason for. Any future formats will be
unambiguously distinguishable. Those format-undeclared source packages
can't be eradicated from the earth entirely. So why not simply declare
that they are source format 1.0, as is without changes, and will always
be recognised as such even *after* that format is utterly deprecated?

-- 
 \       “To have the choice between proprietary software packages, is |
  `\      being able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a |
_o__)                        master.” —Richard M. Stallman, 2007-05-16 |
Ben Finney