Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:04:56PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> writes:
>> > Is anyone here maintaining blend packages that have not been uploaded
>> > to Debian? If so, please speak up.
>> My point was here: If we introduce a format identifier (like an URL), we
>> can very simply test for it and exit with error if it is the wrong one.
>> The required changes in the tasks are trivial, so there would be no need
>> to support more than the "new" format. Anyone who did not get the bang
>> can just change it then.
> I wonder if all this format discussion might keep us away to continue
> with the simple solution to just do it and break things that are
> outside. IMHO it should not stop our progress if outside people are
> using things that are intended for inside. I would be very happy if
> some of the perl programmers would do that supposedly simple change and
> we could continue with interesting things.
Sorry, I don't see the big problem here: The first step is anyway just
to extend blends-dev to accept "Recommends" aside of "Depends", which
should be simply enough. Then, the only disagreement is that I propose
to have a required Format: line in the tasks header; this should be
trivial enough as well (as long as we agree on the URL itself).
This additional line even works if the URL is not valid yet -- but gives
us some additional pressure to create an up-do-date format description
(which is IMO not the worst thing).
So, what about
(blends-doc has currently version 0.6.98; 0.7 would be the logical next