On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> wrote: > I'm sorry you don't like dgit, and I am happy to try and make your life > easier, but fundamentally I think it's a good workflow. I'm adjusting my > workflow to more closely match that outlined in dgit-maint-merge(7), > which should help.
The problem is that there is important metadata stored as git commits (information about why this line in this source file was changed) that is completely missing from the source package. That makes it very difficult for a downstream like Ubuntu to be able to process security updates and pcre2 is a security-sensitive package. > dgit is quite new, so I don't think describing it as not a modern > workflow is very fair. You are using an undeclared 1.0 source format. [1] The vast majority of Debian packages use 3.0 (quilt) except if they are a Debian native package. [2] I don't think I have a big issue with dgit except that it encourages you to use non-standard packaging. Have you tried using gbp pq (git-buildpackage's patch-queue) feature? [3] It works pretty well for converting ordinary git commits into a 3.0 (quilt) format. git-buildpackage is far more popular in Debian than dgit so it would encourage other contributors to submit fixes to you. (dgit is 4 years old which means it's not particularly new any more, it's just not been interesting enough to Debian Developers.) Because Debian Policy does not currently absolutely require using 3.0 (quilt), you as the package maintainer have the right to use a "native" source format. I also have the right to complain when your decision causes more work downstream. [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-debian-source-format.html [2] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system.html [3] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/gbp-pq For completeness, here's one more minor bug in your package: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/no-homepage-field.html Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
