Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

[Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>]

Hi,

On 15/03/22 at 09:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were
> > filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose.
> 
> It looks like the query didn't do quite what was intended, indeed:
> src:userv-utils is maintained in git but a bug was filed.  Before I go
> ahead and close the bug, would you mind confirming this was an error
> rather than a disagreement about what counts as VCS-maintained?

Taking src:userv-utils:
- it is not maintained by Debian X
- it is maintained in a VCS
- the VCS is OK
- there are no direct changes in diff.gz, because there's no diff.gz,
  because the package is a native package. => the filter evaluates to
  true

So the limit of the query above is that it does not indeed account for
So the query works as intended, but indeed does not properly take into
account native packages, since direct_changes is always false.

There are 16 packages in that case:
- with a Debian revision:
  cachefilesd
  userv-utils
  vde2

- without a Debian revision:
  daptup
  dgit
  games-thumbnails
  gimp-plugin-registry
  gitpkg
  ifupdown-extra
  lpr
  postal
  svn-buildpackage
  uphpmvault
  vim-scripts
  whalebuilder
  xmorph

Indeed, it would have been better to look at whether those packages
include a Debian revision, to deal separately with those three special
cases.

Lucas