Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:46 AM Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Debian is not upstream, so it has a Debian revision. The package is
> maintained in git, and the source package is very small and it is not
> uploaded frequently. So we use a native source format. This means
> that we must use format 1.0 because dpkg hates 3.0 native with debian
> revision.
I do not understand the word "must" in that sentence, nor do I agree
with the word "hate".
I'll reiterate my call for a compromise: Let's deprecate source format
1.0 in exchange for relaxed version strings. It will streamline our
tooling and reduce the cognitive load on new maintainers.
> Yes. People complain about the Debian packaging toolchain being too
> complex or too confusing. This is one of such cases. As has been stated
> countless times, this subverts the semantics of both the source and
> version formats. At least we only have one case remaining, the even
> more senseless 1.0 non-native source with native version was turned
> into an error with dpkg 1.20.1. Recall that dpkg-source currently needs
> to use heuristics to decide whether to use an orig tarball + diff or not
> for format 1.0. :(
I'll buy both you, Ian and Guillem, a beer next time I see you. The
dispute has been going on for too long. Or, is it a battle over the
soul of Dpkg between the current maintainer and its inventor? For good
measure, Lucas is invited, too.
I think a negotiated peace is superior to yet another unhappy
interaction with the Technical Committee. Why do we have to put them
into such a difficult position every time?
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
Reply to: