Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
Hello, I hereby call for votes on the following resolution: BEGIN BALLOT 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. 4a. 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. 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. 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 Option N -- none of the above. END BALLOT -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
Hello, On Mon 20 Jun 2022 at 05:31PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote: > BEGIN BALLOT > > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. > > END BALLOT I vote A > C > X > N -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
Hi, On 21/06/2022 01:31, Sean Whitton wrote: Hello, I hereby call for votes on the following resolution: BEGIN BALLOT 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. 4a. 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. 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. 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 Option N -- none of the above. END BALLOT I vote: A > C > X > N Thanks, Matthew OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
Hello, Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 05:31:16PM -0700]: > Hello, > > I hereby call for votes on the following resolution: > > BEGIN BALLOT > > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. > > END BALLOT My vote is: A > C > X > N Thanks! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 17:31:16 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. I vote C > A > X > N. smcv signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 05:31:16PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > BEGIN BALLOT > > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. > > END BALLOT I vote C > X > A > N. Rationale A key issue on this ballot to me is consistency of the archive. Given that 1.0 source formats have mostly vanished, deprecating the remainder is reasonable. While I would have liked a deprecation decision for all 1.0 formats in all cases, this is not project consensus yet and we're taking a smaller step here. Meanwhile, this recommendation enables work to continue getting rid of 1.0 formats. Since 4a can be read as an endorsement, I prefer excluding it. The longer version is to be found in the discussion mails. Helmut signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 05:31:16PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > BEGIN BALLOT > > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. > > END BALLOT I vote: C > A > X > N -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 05:31:16PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > I hereby call for votes on the following resolution: > > BEGIN BALLOT > > 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. > > 4a. 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. > > 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. > > 4c. 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 ... [second paragraph as in 4a]. > > 5. We decline to comment on the recent source package format MBF. > > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. > > END BALLOT I vote: C > A > X > N - e signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007717: Ballot and call for votes
Re: Sean Whitton > Option A -- issue items 1-3, 4a and 5 > > Option C -- issue items 1-3, 4c and 5 > > Option X -- issue only items 1, 2, 3 and 5 > > Option N -- none of the above. I vote: C > A > X > N Christoph signature.asc Description: PGP signature
