On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:16:56 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the > > Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their > > own, or for $work, etc. > > Hmm. Emitting such a tag here still seems right to me, or at least > when balanced with the downsides. The local package will never > reach "dak prime" by definition, after all, and the maintainer can > simply override the warning if they so wish (and do not use a > vendor).
The problem with this is that a warning (now) or a non-overridable error (in the future) are rather scary looking, and even harder to override as the latter does require a custom vendor profile. :( Something like the following untested one: ,--- Profile: vendor/main Extends: debian/main Disable-Tags: package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series, `--- Which would of course still trigger on other systems w/o that vendor profile. This is compounded with the fact that there's still no clear distinction between what is the core specification of the packaging system and what's (possibly arbitrary) Debian-specific policy (which I'm trying to fix slowly from the dpkg side by documenting the first part within dpkg itself, but still), and that the tag description does not help either as it seems misleading to me. :/ > > in most cases will not go to the trouble of creating a new vendor for this. > > I wonder if part of the solution might be to make this bit easier? Creating the profiles is rather easy, the above would be a simple example of that, and can be placed either system-wide or on each user's home. The problem is that this needs to be deployed on each user/CI/build system that is going to have to deal with those. That's why I think the "presence" of the tag is inverted here, for something that really feels should only be emitted within the confines of the Debian (and Ubuntu) archives. > Or perhaps not emit this tag for "local" packages (via the > versioning scheme?) I'm not sure there's any reliable way to distinguish those? I think most people even tend to use the defaul target distribution from dch, and use normal looking versions for local packages. But maybe you had something else in mind? Thanks, Guillem