On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:02:35PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word. > But: > * They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0 vs 3.0, like: > - no support for .tar.(bz2|xz|…) > - no support for multi tarballs
those don't seem to be relevant for those packages.
> * possibility of bugs due to the implementations of the patch/unpatch
> routines in d/rules
> * also similar to the above, you can't assume the state of the
> unpacked source (patched or unpatched?)
> * they are different from no good reason (0.5% vs 94.8%), and
> consistency in complex setup carry some good points by itself
>
> And at the same time I can't really think of any good point of keeping
> them 1.0.
change also has a costs.
> IMHO, they aren't "wrong" or "inherently bad", but I believe keeping
> them that way is more of technical debt than anything else.
right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal,
but I don't think important would be justified, and serious seriously not.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.
(Bertolt Brecht)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
