Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]

[Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>]

On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> > bugs using the following template:
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------>8
> > Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Usertags: format1.0
> > 
> > Dear maintainer,
> > 
> > This package is among the few (1.9%) that still use source format 1.0 in
> > bookworm.  Please upgrade it to source format 3.0, as (1) this format has many
> > advantages, as documented in https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2)
> > this contributes to standardization of packaging practices.
> > 
> > Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
> > could maybe benefit from a refresh. It might be a good opportunity to
> > look at other aspects as well.
> > 
> > This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html
> >...
> 
> josch already has tested patches for more than half of the packages, 
> starting by submitting bugs for these packages with these patches will 
> avoid work for maintainers and result in faster fixing of the bugs.

I just sent a followup to the relevant bugs (it's the "trivial fix"
column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi )

Thanks

Lucas