Re: Recent changes in dpkg
* Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2010-05-27 10:05:51 CEST]:
> Yes, we're starting a long-term migration that will require every
> package to be modified. The reasons are that the dpkg maintainers
> consider the format 1.0 to no longer be a desirable default for
> dpkg-source given the availability of improved formats. We also
> acknowledge the fact that there's no longer a single format that suits
> all cases and as such we want the maintainer to be explicit about the
> choice they make.
Requiring the file won't get rid of format 1.0 but will make people put
1.0 into debian/source/format. Planing to make the file mandatory might
indeed make more people think about it, though having the file won't
make the format 1.0 go away. There are already quite some packages in
the pool which explicitly have put 1.0 into the file - thus stating that
your approach to deprecate 1.0 with making the file mandatory is on the
So what is the real goal of making the file mandatory, your above
stated reason is unfortunately not working out?
> No, we won't break packages, it's a migration and dpkg-source will be
> switched only when all packages have been modified.
What do you include in the set of "all packages"? All packages in the
Debian pool? All packages that derivates might have? All packages that
commercial software developers offer? You are hopefully very well aware
that Debian isn't the only distribution or development body that uses
the .deb format.
> And 1.17.x means squeeze+2. And at that time, 1.0 will still be supported,
> it's just that it won't be assumed if debian/source/format is absent.
And again, explicitly, I would like to know what the real benefit of
this change is that would *then* break building source packages, when
1.0 itself isn't planned to get deprecated.