On 28/03/22 at 16:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > 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/>. Yes, my point is that those packages don't have Vcs-* headers, so it's impossible to discover the above URL. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature