On Thu, 27 May 2010 06:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Philipp Kern <trash@philkern.de> wrote: > On 2010-05-26, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010, Philipp Kern wrote: > >> ETOPIC. You have to specify the format in the package. The lack of debian/source/format should be a de facto declaration of source format 1.0. > >> Nowhere > >> they write that 1.0 will disappear. And they say "in the long > >> term" too, so "debian/source/format" should be propagating > >> naturally into most of the packages due to the lintian tag. > > And I haven't heard of a single reason, why the lack of > > debian/source/format *shouldn't* be interpreted as, well, > > source/format 1.0. > > As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because > the format is pretty clear then, but about packing (or in this case > repacking) the source package. There you should be explicit in what > you mean because future versions of dpkg might abort if the source > version is not explicitly specified in the package. > > Now I think the maintainers did outline why they want that in the > past. :P dpkg should not abort - that will cause a FTBFS through no fault of the package. First thing dpkg-buildpackage does is pack up the unpacked source. The archive is regularly rebuilt from the existing source packages; dpkg must not change the behaviour in a way that breaks such rebuilds. Let's not get into making that a special case, there are lots of situations where third parties need to rebuild packages outside Debian and there can be no justification for making such rebuilds impossible merely for the convenience of dpkg. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp7aUsky1YRH.pgp
Description: PGP signature