Hi, > > The topic seems related to Ian's drive to start using the 1.0 source > > format again for new packages, like he did in xtruss, despite my > > recommendation and ignoring the example of how the same can and should > > be done with format 3.0 > > (https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/issues/396). > > > > I suggest the changes in this Bug#1107137 would be postponed for now > > and the format discussed at the next DebConf. > > I disagree - the TC ruled in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007717#384 that
I checked a couple of those 158 remaining packages and I noticed you are among those who are using this 1.0 format intentionally. You should be honest that you have been doing this already before the TC accepted Ian's proposal to rule that 1.0 format is acceptable, and the TC decision is not the reason you do this, but the permission for you to continue. I skimmed through the discussion in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007717 and that discussion too is void of examples of packages. This statement "there are indeed circumstances in which 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package" in the resolution isn't actually backed up by examples, which worries me. Assuming Ian is the best proponent of using this format, we should look at one of his packages and ask if it really is the "best choice". Looking at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/xtruss it was uploaded as a native package with Debian revision, and the only artifacts in the Debian archive are xtruss_0.0~git20241011.27fafffe-1.dsc and xtruss_0.0~git20241011.27fafffe-1.tar.gz. There is no upstream xtruss source at all. Getting rid of upstream source packages seems to be the goal of Ian, but the TC decision to allow it was using wording that seems to deliberately avoid mentioning that this is indeed the outcome. Having examples of real packages as part of the discussion would make it more obvious what is the actual result of the suggested changes in policies and rules.
