Hello, On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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.) They have detailed history on dgit-repos. E.g. <https://browse.dgit.debian.org/its-playback-time.git/>. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature