On 2025-05-27 19:44:52 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Hi, > > For reference, the resolution in #1007717 was: > > """ > Therefore, using its powers > under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee issues the following > advice: > > 1. It is not a bug of any severity for a package with a non-native > version number to use a native source package format. > > 2. Thus, we think that dpkg shouldn't issue warnings, or otherwise > complain, when a non-native version number is used w/ 3.0 (native). > > 3. We suggest that the wontfix tag on #737634 be reconsidered. > > 4. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which > 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package, > including, but not limited to, git-first packaging workflows. > However, we recommend discontinuing use of 1.0-with-diff in other > circumstances, to simplify the contents of the archive. > > This is because there is currently no other source format which is > such that avoid both (i) uploading the whole source, including > upstream, for every upload; and (ii) having to maintain > debian/patches/ inside the package tree. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > """ > > As Ian points out, dpkg-source was changed to reject 3.0 quilt with native > version and 3.0 native with non-native version in dpkg (in response to > #700177) on the basis that it was considered to be a mistake to have either > of those combinations. In discussion on the resulting #737634 Guillem said > that he thought it was a failing in dpkg that 1.0 packages were sloppy in > enforcing native vs non-native version numbers; he later added that he > thought that such use of version numbers was contrary to policy[0]. > > The TC was not asked to consider over-ruling the dpkg maintainer in its > consideration of #1007717; the question of whether 3.0 native should allow > non-native version numbers arose during discussion. > > I think Ian is right that we could declare as he wishes under 6.1.1 that: > > dpkg-source should be able to build "3.0 (native)" source packages > with a non-native version number. > > ...although if the dpkg maintainers continue to decline to allow a fix of > #737634 to implement such a policy I'm not quite sure where it would leave > us constitutionally. > > I incline to the view that we should probably make such a declaration, and > suggest to the release team that such a fix should be allowed into trixie > (though obviously it's up to them).
NACK, it's way too late into the freeze. Toolchain freeze (which dpkg belongs to) started on 2025-03-15. Cheers > > Disclaimer: I've known Ian for years. I think there is plenty of evidence > that this doesn't stop me disagreeing with them ;-) > > Regards, > > Matthew > > [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737634#77 > -- Sebastian Ramacher
