On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > The custom format in particular is unlikely to ever be accepted, it
> > seems to me;
> The custom format is not a format.
From the manpage:
SOURCE PACKAGE FORMATS
Format: 1.0
...
Format: 2.0
...
Format: 3.0 ...
...
Format: 3.0 (custom)
If it's not a format, it shouldn't be under the "SOURCE PACKAGE FORMATS"
section...
> > I suspect 2.0 is entirely obsolete at this point;
> It is. The manual page says "This format is not recommended for
> wide-spread usage, the format "3.0 (quilt)" replaces it."
"not recommended" is a fair bit short of "obsolete".
> 3.0 (native) used with gzip compression will result in Format: 1.0
> packages as they are exactly the same than native packages that we know
> right now.
Augh. This is really badly structured then -- you're conflating the
"source package format" (ie, what goes on the archive, and what you
unpack) with the dpkg internals of how to generate them *when they don't
even work the same way*.
> Urgh. I'm not promoting it as "version control format/system". I just
> promote it as a good source package format: ie a snapshot of a software
> that has been debianized.
As I think I've already said, I consider a source package format to *be*
a version control system. If you don't agree, that's fine; but you still
shouldn't be promoting one source format over another.
> I don't see any win over the current situation [...]
> Yet we have enumerated quite a few drawbacks: [...]
It's great you've got an opinion; but that's all it is -- dpkg supports
them all, various archives will support whatever their admins decide is
reasonable, and developers will choose whichever they thing's best for
their packages.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature