Hi, thanks.
Timo Röhling writes ("Re: dpkg-source, native source package format with
non-native version"):
> Dimitri argues that the native package format is useful even for
> non-native packages
...
> If I have mispresented or omitted important facts, please do not
> hesitate to correct me.
I think this would benefit from stronger emphasis on the relevant
discussions in #1007717, which are much more comprehensive, and many
of which bear directly on the underlying technical policy question.
In #1007717 several use cases were presented there for "3.0 (native)"
source packages with a native version, including by me and Sam and
others. In particular many reasonable git-first workflows find this
convenient. The downsides of "3.0 (quilt)" as an alternative are
discussed in #1007717 too.
At the very least your summary ought to mention that this restriction
is blocking me from changing several of my packages from 1.0 source
format.
Also I think your summary doesn't really do justice to the ruling in
#1007717. for example, in your summary you write
> Guillem argues in the original bug that the versioning scheme is an
> important part of the distinction between native and non-native packages
This is an argument in support of of the supposed bugginess of "3.0
(native)" with a non-native version. It was considered by the TC in
#1007717 - and rejected.
Obviously as someone whose views (on this point) were upheld by the TC
in #1007717, I have an interest in the TC not re-litigating the
underlying technical decision. So my intent with my request was to
ask the TC to permut an NMU, to align dpkg with the TC decision last
year.
Your summary probably ought to mention that I see this as a procedural
request to permit an NMU, not a request for a substantive decision.
So I think the summary ought to acknowledge that there is a process
question to answer, before we go back into all the arguments presented
in #1007717.
Obviously the TC should feel free to re-open previous decisions,
especially in the light of new information and experience. But I
don't think there has been any new information here, other than
that Ubuntu has relaxed this restriction without any problems for
them.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
