On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:08PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > The custom format in particular is unlikely to ever be accepted, it > > seems to me; > The custom format is not a format.
From the manpage: SOURCE PACKAGE FORMATS Format: 1.0 ... Format: 2.0 ... Format: 3.0 ... ... Format: 3.0 (custom) If it's not a format, it shouldn't be under the "SOURCE PACKAGE FORMATS" section... > > I suspect 2.0 is entirely obsolete at this point; > It is. The manual page says "This format is not recommended for > wide-spread usage, the format "3.0 (quilt)" replaces it." "not recommended" is a fair bit short of "obsolete". > 3.0 (native) used with gzip compression will result in Format: 1.0 > packages as they are exactly the same than native packages that we know > right now. Augh. This is really badly structured then -- you're conflating the "source package format" (ie, what goes on the archive, and what you unpack) with the dpkg internals of how to generate them *when they don't even work the same way*. > Urgh. I'm not promoting it as "version control format/system". I just > promote it as a good source package format: ie a snapshot of a software > that has been debianized. As I think I've already said, I consider a source package format to *be* a version control system. If you don't agree, that's fine; but you still shouldn't be promoting one source format over another. > I don't see any win over the current situation [...] > Yet we have enumerated quite a few drawbacks: [...] It's great you've got an opinion; but that's all it is -- dpkg supports them all, various archives will support whatever their admins decide is reasonable, and developers will choose whichever they thing's best for their packages. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature