On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
>
> So the breakdown for testing is:
>
> 27 1.0, dpatch
I'll take upon myself to get rid of this set RSN.
> 166 1.0, quilt
And also think something about this, though I'd have to see some data
about them, but I'm interested in also moving this set forward.
> 374 1.0, no changes
I think it would be interesting to see data about "freshness" of these
sources, maintainers, etc. I'd expect that all the non-native of this
set could likely be made 3.0+quilt, but who knows...
> 395 1.0, direct changes
And, as said in the other thread, I'd leave these alone for now (maybe I
should query and see whether some are orphaned, unmaintained, etc, but
generally leave them alone).
> Indeed we could probably only allow 1.0 without changes to upstream
> sources, and 3.0 formats.
1.0 without changes still has details that I don't like. For example
the fact that the upstream tarball can only be .gz. And the passerby
contributor trying to add a patch will surely be confused with how
different the behaviour is compared to huge majority of all the other
packages, so I'd still try to move them over to 3.0, if the maintainer
doesn't push back.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature