Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
Hi Ian,
As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes))
or, maybe easier to read:
(not debian_x) and ((not vcs) or vcs_status == 'ERROR' or (not direct_changes))
I did not file bugs for packages that are likely to use a VCS-based
workflow (category (2) in the mail pointed above, or in
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi)
What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were
filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose.
Also, feel free to close those bugs with a short explaining message.
I'll try to summarize the reasons for not migrating packages in a couple
of months.
Lucas
Reply to: