Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
> native packages with Debian revision:
>
> its-playback-time
> spigot
> vm
> vtwm
> chroma
>
> Clearly the it makes no sense to have filed bugs saying "please switch
> to this other source format" when the other source format cannot
> represent the package.
Those five packages:
- are indeed native packages with Debian revisions
- are not maintained in a VCS (or the VCS is not advertized using
Vcs-*).
So there's no easy way to understand how the package differs from
upstream (no patch serie, no VCS history). I don't think that it's
something desirable.
(if the packages had declared a VCS, they would have joined cachefilesd,
userv-utils, and vde2 in the "native package with a Debian revision
maintained in a VCS" category.)
Lucas
Reply to: