Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:46:10AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> > But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
> For example, consider a package maintained by a sponsee of mine:
>
> 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.
So the package is really non-native; your beef here is with requiring a
tarball. Your workaround is to [mis]use the native format.
But even legitimely native packages do want a Debian revision sometimes.
Eg. the natural versioning for valgrind-if-available would track
corresponding valgrind versions. The 3.0 format restriction forbids
that.
So the bad thing is tying the internal format with version numbers.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ 'Russkiy voyennyi korabl, idi nakhuy'
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: