Lucas Nussbaum dixit:
>column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi )
I’m apparently affected at least for cvs, but that package has
another very interesting use case for format 1.0:
Its .diff.gz file can *directly* be used as patch file in no less
than *two* other packaging systems (BS
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>...
> For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> bugs using the following template:
>
> -->8
> Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
>
On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> > bugs using the following template:
> >
> > -->8
On 10/03/22 at 21:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of
> packages for each category. The packages count is currently:
> (1.1): 53 packages
> (1.2): 424 packages
> (2): 149 packages
Actually it's:
(1.1): 60 packages
(1.2): 431 packages
(
Hi,
Based on the discussion, I propose the following:
Let's split the 626 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0 into
three categories (1.1), (1.2), (2):
(1) packages with are very unlikely to use a VCS-based workflow (not
maintained by Debian X; not using a VCS; or referring to a broken
5 matches
Mail list logo
