On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: > > The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into > > either switching, which they should be doing out of their own > > volition anyway because people think the new formats are really > > superior and help them. Or so that people set it explicitly to 1.0 > > just to shut up the warning, and then we have some kind of stats of > > how many people have been pestered… Which I think is the wrong way > > about trying to get people to switch. > > You see it only from a negative side, sure there are a few people who > consider this message as "pestering them" but it really filled the role > of the missing lintian warning for all people who create source packages > from scratch and/or who take over old packages and use the lintian output > as their todo list.
I'll take a long tail of packages that have not switched to new stuff because they are practically unmaintained or because the maintainer didn't yet find the time to switch, than one that is composed of those plus ones from disgruntled or alienated maintainers, any day. Removal of that warning is just a step in trying to heal those “wounds”. > Certainly that without this message the adoption rate of the new formats > would not have been so good as it has been (which despite some of the > critics, is probably one the best adoption rate for such wide scale opt-in > changes in the Debian history). I don't think the adoption rate has been much different in relative terms to any other such change in Debian, and I expect the long tail to linger for a long time. I also think a bigger factor was the very aggressive campaign at the beginning, which at the same time seemed counterproductive as it pushed the wrong buttons for quite some people. > So to sum it up, I'm OK for dropping that message but only if lintian gets > the corresponding tag raised to a warning level and IMO it still makes > sense in the long term for dpkg-source to abort if debian/source/format is > missing, precisely because the historical default no longer matches > Debian's desired default. It does not make sense, because when it comes to source packages, there isn't and never has been a default from dpkg-source or even Debian. dpkg-source builds whatever is provided by the maintainer, and it does not (and cannot as currently designed) perform any format conversion on its own (compared to dpkg-deb f.ex.). There might be a project preferred or recommended format, or packages such as dh-make or debmake might have such default but certainly not in dpkg-source or Debian. Bumping that lintian tag to a warning would be rather inappropriate IMO. Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140814082956.ga13...@gaara.hadrons.org
