On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > Hi! > > > > * Philipp Kern <tr...@philkern.de> [2010-05-27 08:11:36 CEST]: > > | As far as I understood it, it's not that much about unpacking, because > > | the format is pretty clear then, but about packing (or in this case > > | repacking) the source package. There you should be explicit in what > > | you mean because future versions of dpkg might abort if the source version > > | is not explicitly specified in the package. > > > > Why is that needed? It always was explicit that 1.0 is meant, what's > > the need for the change? > > > > | Now I think the maintainers did outline why they want that in the past. :P > > > > Why they want it unfortunately is a wrong reasoning - the actual > > pending and still unanswered question is "why it is needed". They > > want people to switch to 3.0. By forcing to put something into > > debian/source/format people start putting 1.0 in there for no gain. I > > still fail to have received any real answer why debian/source/format > > "1.0" containing is better than no debian/source directory at all. > > There is one possible benefit: impossibility to create a native package > when the .orig.tar.gz is missing, which happens much too often.
Hrm, I was under the impression that native packages with an existing source/format of "1.0" would still be allowed? Maybe people could live with the change that 1.0 native packages need to explain themselves as "1.0 (native)" in debian/source/format (if that file is present, otherwise assume "1.0" as before, but that's a side issue), or dpkg-source would fail. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100527104829.ge1...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
