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
