On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:02:35PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word. > But: > * They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0 vs 3.0, like: > - no support for .tar.(bz2|xz|…) > - no support for multi tarballs those don't seem to be relevant for those packages. > * possibility of bugs due to the implementations of the patch/unpatch > routines in d/rules > * also similar to the above, you can't assume the state of the > unpacked source (patched or unpatched?) > * they are different from no good reason (0.5% vs 94.8%), and > consistency in complex setup carry some good points by itself > > And at the same time I can't really think of any good point of keeping > them 1.0. change also has a costs. > IMHO, they aren't "wrong" or "inherently bad", but I believe keeping > them that way is more of technical debt than anything else. right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal, but I don't think important would be justified, and serious seriously not. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are. (Bertolt Brecht)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature