On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:46:10AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format > 1.0"): > > But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
> For example, consider a package maintained by a sponsee of mine: > > 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. So the package is really non-native; your beef here is with requiring a tarball. Your workaround is to [mis]use the native format. But even legitimely native packages do want a Debian revision sometimes. Eg. the natural versioning for valgrind-if-available would track corresponding valgrind versions. The 3.0 format restriction forbids that. So the bad thing is tying the internal format with version numbers. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ 'Russkiy voyennyi korabl, idi nakhuy' ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀