On 3/15/22 10:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes)) or, maybe easier to read: (not debian_x) and ((not vcs) or vcs_status == 'ERROR' or (not direct_changes))I did not file bugs for packages that are likely to use a VCS-based workflow (category (2) in the mail pointed above, or in https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi)At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0 native packages with Debian revision: its-playback-time spigot vm vtwm chroma
I picked one of these, spigot, at random.
Clearly the it aakes no sense to have filed bugs saying "please switch to this other source format" when the other source format cannot represent the package.
I don't see any reason that 3.0 can't represent the spigot package. It looks like a straightforward package. It seems to have an upstream:
The top changelog entry says "Merge from upstream". debian/control points me to: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/spigot/That site has a tarball available. The Debian package is NOT using that as its .orig.tar.gz. It doesn't have a .orig.tar.gz, presumably indicating it was built built as a native package (even though it has a Debian revision), which is the issue under discussion. To be honest, had I stumbled across this package outside of this conversation, I would have been confused by this.
My understanding is that Debian values the idea of using the pristine upstream tarball. Granted, sometimes that goal has to yield to higher priority things, like DFSG compliance.
How do you feel about the pristine tarball concept? -- Richard
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
