Re: Git Packaging: Native source formats

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Git Packaging: Native source formats"):
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Git Packaging: Native source formats"):
> > Unlike 1.0 (non-native) vs. 3.0 (quilt), where some people prefer one and
> > some people prefer the other, I am not aware of any advantages of 1.0
> > (native) over 3.0 (native). If 3.0 (native) is indeed strictly better
> > than 1.0 (native), perhaps it would be reasonable to say that packages
> > that intentionally have a non-native version number but a native
> > source format should declare this explicitly, by using "3.0 (native)"
> > in d/source/format? That way, if a version 1.0 source package has a
> > non-native version number, tools can assume that it was meant to have
> > a .orig, and issue warnings; conversely, if a source package with a
> > non-native version number explicitly has "3.0 (native)" format, tools
> > could assume that the maintainer wants what they asked for.
> 
> Perhaps.  I have a vague feeling that there might be (or have once
> been?) some reason to prefer 1.0 (native) to 3.0 (native) but I can't
> bring it to mind, and now that I try to think about it it's all just
> fog.  Maybe I am remembering some years-old abundance of caution.

Private email prompted me to check something, and I was right to
remember that there was a difficulty.  dpkg-source refuses to create a
`3.0 (native)' package with a Debian revision number:

$ dpkg-source  -b .
dpkg-source: error: can't build with source format '3.0 (native)': native package version may not have a revision
$

It looks like the dpkg maintainers are adamant that dpkg-source is
correct.  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737634

So `3.0 (native)' is not strictly better than 1.0.  dpkg-source
refuses to work in the situation where I am saying (and you seem to be
agreeing) that it shouldn't even print a warning ...

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.