Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

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

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> > [questions]
...
> 
> The situation here is complicated.
> 
> 
> The tl;dr is that
> 
>  * there are several situations where 1.0-native is the best answer,
>  * there are several situations where 1.0-with-diff is the best answer,
> 
> The root cause of both of these situations is that 3.0, sadly,
> is not always better in every respect than 1.0.

After I wrote that, there was a further excvhange where multiple
people replied to me "why are you doing that" - some in very
unpleasant tones of voice.

Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
is not someone I am on speaking terms with).

But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.

I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
background, but it seems that Debian is not interested in facts.  I
don't know why I bother.

Ian.