[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm interested in what things people still find so off-putting to the
> point of not wanting to use the new 3.0 source formats, or what makes
> people use them in anger and similar (if people would state which one
> of these apply that would be helpful). All these including objective
> and subjective issue. And even existing bug references would be fine.
> I've created an initial draft wiki page with few things I had noted
> down, where I'll try to summarize things mentioned on the thread:
>   <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/SourceFormatProblems>

I use the "3.0 (native)" and "3.0 (quilt)" formats, mostly because they
have better defaults in dpkg-source.  I also like that these formats
support source tarball compressions other than gzip.

That page already captures my primary issue with "3.0 (quilt)": it acts
like a version control system, and interacts poorly with other version
control systems.

Related to that, the 3.0 formats also require listing binary files
explicitly in debian/source/include-binaries, rather than handling them
transparently like all modern version control systems do.

I don't want the source format to care about details like those.  If
people want to use quilt to manage a patch series within their packages,
they can do so, but the source format shouldn't care about that.  The
source format should not attempt to specify or interact in any way with
patching or version control.

Reply to: