Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
> I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
> not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes))
> or, maybe easier to read:
> (not debian_x) and ((not vcs) or vcs_status == 'ERROR' or (not
> direct_changes))
>
> I did not file bugs for packages that are likely to use a VCS-based
> workflow (category (2) in the mail pointed above, or in
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi)
At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
native packages with Debian revision:
its-playback-time
spigot
vm
vtwm
chroma
Clearly the it aakes no sense to have filed bugs saying "please switch
to this other source format" when the other source format cannot
represent the package.
Additionally, there were a further 9 packages where I am the
maintainer or uploader where the current version does not have a
Debian revision. They could to be switched to "3.0 (native)" for the
better compression support.
However, given that I perceive that:
- there is a campaign to abolish 1.0
- there are important use cases where 1.0 is needed
- the campaign to abolish 1.0 is being prosecuted anyway
I have deliberately chosen to continue to upload even pure-native
packages as 1.0, to try to slow this process down in the hope that the
situation improves and/or people stop trying to forbid useful things.
I maintain all my packages with dgit. I presume that the vcs status
you are referring to is just that the Vcs-Git header is out of date
since the closure of alioth, or perhaps that there isn't one.
I hope thius clarifies.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
