Hello, On Tue 29 Mar 2022 at 08:50AM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 28/03/22 at 16:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> >> > On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> Clearly the it makes no sense to have filed bugs saying "please switch >> >> to this other source format" when the other source format cannot >> >> represent the package. >> > >> > Those five packages: >> > - are indeed native packages with Debian revisions >> > - are not maintained in a VCS (or the VCS is not advertized using >> > Vcs-*). >> > >> > So there's no easy way to understand how the package differs from >> > upstream (no patch serie, no VCS history). I don't think that it's >> > something desirable. >> > (if the packages had declared a VCS, they would have joined cachefilesd, >> > userv-utils, and vde2 in the "native package with a Debian revision >> > maintained in a VCS" category.) >> >> They have detailed history on dgit-repos. >> E.g. <https://browse.dgit.debian.org/its-playback-time.git/>. > > Yes, my point is that those packages don't have Vcs-* headers, so it's > impossible to discover the above URL. Right, sorry. They should have such Vcs-* headers added. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
