Re: Recent changes in dpkg
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > * Philipp Kern <trash@philkern.de> [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]:
> > | 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.
> >
> > Why is that needed? It always was explicit that 1.0 is meant, what's
> > the need for the change?
> >
> > | Now I think the maintainers did outline why they want that in the past. :P
> >
> > Why they want it unfortunately is a wrong reasoning - the actual
> > pending and still unanswered question is "why it is needed". They
> > want people to switch to 3.0. By forcing to put something into
> > debian/source/format people start putting 1.0 in there for no gain. I
> > still fail to have received any real answer why debian/source/format
> > "1.0" containing is better than no debian/source directory at all.
>
> There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package
> when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
Hrm, I was under the impression that native packages with an existing
source/format of "1.0" would still be allowed?
Maybe people could live with the change that 1.0 native packages need to
explain themselves as "1.0 (native)" in debian/source/format (if that
file is present, otherwise assume "1.0" as before, but that's a side
issue), or dpkg-source would fail.
Michael
Reply to: