Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
From: Jeremy Bicha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:02:10 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] CAD+GYvxpK6WpCb_EXexb3b9AdxwYvf7CQra-3ZTAUvHs1S13cg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] YiYmT82vdvWeVyJp@pc181009.grep.be>
References: <[🔎] YiUYybMfFxOcJb7A@xanadu.blop.info> <[🔎] YiYmT82vdvWeVyJp@pc181009.grep.be>

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:36 AM Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 09:25:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
> >    aspic
> >    logtool
>
> Yeah, no. These will be reduced to "wishlist" and probably tagged
> "wontfix".
>
> The packages work just fine, the source format is still supported, I
> have better things to do with my time?

I guess you'd be ok with orphaning aspic to allow others to more
easily modernize the packaging?
https://bugs.debian.org/657083

Thank you,
Jeremy Bicha

Reply to:

References:
- proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
  - From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>
- Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
  - From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Next by Date: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Previous by thread: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Next by thread: Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread