Hi Ian, On 15/03/22 at 16:29 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least: > > 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with > a native format, but a non-native version number. > > 2. Request that the dpkg maintainer relax the restriction which > prevents the use of 3.0 native with Debian revision. > > 3. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not > to have been filed against packages where simply changing the > source format does not currently work. That would include at > least 1.0 native packages with Debian revisions. > > Part II - bless continued use of 1.0-with-diff, for now at least: > > 4. Declare that sometimes the use of 1.0-with-diff can be the best > tradeoff between different considerations. In particular, > because 1.0 is the only format which botH: > (a) Optimises bandwidth and storage by reusing the upstream > data when it hasn't changed. > (b) Avoids polluting the working tree (package source code) > with [patches], which cause trouble especially with > git-based workflows. > > 5. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not > to have been filed against 1.0 with diff packages, at least > without some further filter.
I did the MBF mentioned in (5) (about suggesting the move from the 1.0 format to one of the 3.0 formats), and agreed to pause those efforts in <YjD/8hqJ/zqex...@xanadu.blop.info>. However, it might be worth clarifying if the MBF in (3) is mine, or Guillem's one (with usertag dpkg-mismatch-source-vs-version-format and user debian-d...@lists.debian.org) about "Mismatched source format vs source version" (an example bug is #1007088). I think it's mine, but I'm not sure. It might also be both. Lucas
