Hello Ian, Thank you for the summary, which helped refresh my memory. On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 04:38PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote: > 1. Why is 1.0-without-diff not always worse than 3.0 (native) ? > > 1.0 native is sometimes better than 3.0 (native) because dpkg-source > refuses to build a 3.0 native package with a Debian revision in its > version number. > > This prohibition exists solely because of a doctrinal objection to > native-format packages with Debian revisions. There is no technical > reason why this restriction could not be lifted. I sometimes upload > this way and I have never had anyone report problems[1] with it. > > IMO there is nothing wrong with native format packages with Debian > revisions. They work just fine. For a small paockage, this is often > a good choice, because it avoids dealing with patches at all. > > For anything but a small package, use of diffs is needed as a storage > and distribution optimisation. It it perhaps worth noting that this idea that native source package formats cannot have Debian revisions is an idea found in dpkg, not in Policy, which latter otherwise has quite a bit to say about native vs. non-native. > Changes not representable by diff is what Sean is talking about here: > >> Ian has some cases where something that is representable in git is not >> representable using 3.0 (quilt) but is representable using 1.0. I don't >> have those cases to hand; Ian, could you summarise, please? > > Currently, I think diff cannot represent changes to symlinks. > git can store symlinks and represent their targets, and changes to > their targets. So in this case 1.0-native is the only option. And it would be a downgrade to mess around with what git represents perfectly well just for the sake of an output format. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature