Your message dated Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:23:25 -0700
with message-id <87v8smkrcy@athena.silentflame.com>
and subject line Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native
version
has caused the Debian Bug report #1007717,
regarding Native source package format with non-native version
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1007717: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007717
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tech-ctte
(Sorry for the resend, this should have gone to the BTS the first
time; have fixed a slip in the wording.)
Please:
Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least:
1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with
a native format, but a non-native version number.
2. Request that the dpkg maintainer relax the restriction which
prevents the use of 3.0 native with Debian revision.
3. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not
to have been filed against packages where simply changing the
source format does not currently work. That would include at
least 1.0 native packages with Debian revisions.
Part II - bless continued use of 1.0-with-diff, for now at least:
4. Declare that sometimes the use of 1.0-with-diff can be the best
tradeoff between different considerations. In particular,
because 1.0 is the only format which botH:
(a) Optimises bandwidth and storage by reusing the upstream
data when it hasn't changed.
(b) Avoids polluting the working tree (package source code)
with [patches], which cause trouble especially with
git-based workflows.
5. Consequently, declare that the recent MBF on this topic ought not
to have been filed against 1.0 with diff packages, at least
without some further filter.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
With three first preference votes for A and five first preference votes
for C, the outcome is no longer in doubt. Therefore, using its powers
under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee issues the following
advice:
1. It is not a bug of any severity for a package with a non-native
version number to use a native source package format.
2. Thus, we think that dpkg shouldn't issue warnings, or otherwise
complain, when a non-native version number is used w/ 3.0 (native).
3. We suggest that the wontfix tag on #737634 be reconsidered.
4. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which
1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package,
including, but not limited to, git-first packaging workflows.
However, we recommend discontinuing use of 1.0-with-diff in other
circumstances, to simplify the contents of the archive.
This is because there is currently no other source format which is
such that avoid both (i) uploading the whole source, including
upstream, for every upload; and (ii) having to maintain
debian/patches/ inside the package tree.
5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF.
--
Sean Whitton--- End Message ---
