Alexander Wirt <formo...@debian.org> writes: > The question is: who decides? I have a bunch of packages and an established > workflow that served me well over the last years. I don't want to learn > another *censored* system, just because someone said its the new standard or > it is better.
Thing is, 3.0 (quilt) is an accepted source format, 3.0 (dpatch) isn't (thankfully). It wasn't me who decided that, I didn't make 3.0 (quilt) a "new standard". It's the people who migrate towards it who are making it so. While dpatch and 3.0 (quilt) don't neccessarily conflict, for the vast majority of cases, 3.0 (quilt) should be an improvement over dpatch, and that is one of the driving forces behind the deprecation. I don't believe in forcing people to migrate to something they feel is inferior, though. While the lintian error might seem like a condtradiction to that statement, keep in mind that it's made for the majority who don't really care, and who are happy to migrate to quilt aswell, given some prodding. The lintian error is that prodding. For those of you, who feel strongly about dpatch: I'd like to ask for some patience. dpatch is not going away until there are reverse dependencies, and I'm not going to force an inferior tool on anyone. If that means dpatch will stick around forever, so be it. I don't like that prospect, but I'm willing to accept it. However, I'd like to persuade dpatch users that there ARE better tools, or at least, better tools can be made. My plan, which still stands, is to remove dpatch in 6 years time. I'm fairly sure we can come to an agreement within that timeframe. But for now, I'd like to concentrate on getting the easy cases out of the way, so I can concentrate on the harder ones, such as yours. > I can't remember that somebody asked about deprecating well > established and working tools. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00019.html debmake used to be a well established and working tool (I dare say, it usually worked better than dpatch), and it was officially deprecated with still 60 reverse dependencies. That's a considerably smaller number than dpatchs' reverse build-deps, but still. In its prime, I believe debmake had similar number of reverse-deps, if not more. It's just that debhelper was far more lucrative compared to debmake than 3.0 quilt is to dpatch. -- |8] -- 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/878vmzp8xh.fsf@algernon.balabit
