Hi, On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:46 AM Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > Debian is not upstream, so it has a Debian revision. The package is > maintained in git, and the source package is very small and it is not > uploaded frequently. So we use a native source format. This means > that we must use format 1.0 because dpkg hates 3.0 native with debian > revision.
I do not understand the word "must" in that sentence, nor do I agree with the word "hate". I'll reiterate my call for a compromise: Let's deprecate source format 1.0 in exchange for relaxed version strings. It will streamline our tooling and reduce the cognitive load on new maintainers. > Yes. People complain about the Debian packaging toolchain being too > complex or too confusing. This is one of such cases. As has been stated > countless times, this subverts the semantics of both the source and > version formats. At least we only have one case remaining, the even > more senseless 1.0 non-native source with native version was turned > into an error with dpkg 1.20.1. Recall that dpkg-source currently needs > to use heuristics to decide whether to use an orig tarball + diff or not > for format 1.0. :( I'll buy both you, Ian and Guillem, a beer next time I see you. The dispute has been going on for too long. Or, is it a battle over the soul of Dpkg between the current maintainer and its inventor? For good measure, Lucas is invited, too. I think a negotiated peace is superior to yet another unhappy interaction with the Technical Committee. Why do we have to put them into such a difficult position every time? Kind regards, Felix Lechner
