Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> Something I might want to see though (although I hold not much hope
> for) is a possible move away from the default behavior when no
> debian/source/format is present, as I think that gives bad defaults
> for newcomers or inexperienced users, and even there just emitting
> warnings tend to be ignored. Possible alternatives could be, either
> erroring out, or changing the default format depending on say a
> dpkg-compat level, or similar, I don't know, have not thought this
> through though. But explicitly marking sources as 1.0 (as has been
> warned for a long time now) would of course keep working as of right
> now.

Thanks for the reassurances.  (I have snipped much I didn't feel the
need to comment on but, it was all welcome.)

What you say above makes sense to me.  I'm not sure what an
appropriate timescale would be.

Would you welcome implementation of a "3.0 (diff)" format which
contained a tarball plus a single diff, arranged to be capable of
representing every git tree object ?  There would have to be some
massaging, I guess, mostly because of symlinks.  That would be
pareto-better than 1.0-with-diff.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.