Hi! [ I was pointed out to this bug, so chiming in. :) ]
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 14:47:12 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.55.0 > I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does > not make sense to use a complicated source format; 1.0 native is > perfect. > > Even though I am both upstream and Debian maintainer, this is not a > Debian-specific package and it might have both (i) changes in Debian > that have no upstream implications and (ii) changes upstream that > affect more than Debian. I see why using a native source package in such case can be more convenient. And I also think it is reasonable and something that a maintainer should be able to decide whenever and whether the trade-offs are worth it. Personally, this is something that I'd never do, because I find it alters the nature of native source packages, and makes it more confusing for others to understand and handle within Debian and relative to upstream, but I also obviously consider it acceptable for others to disagree with this view! > A non-native version is the best way to reflect that. But, I don't find this to be very reasonable, because while the previous is a conceptual mismatch (what we consider upstream and packaging, etc), this one is a technical or interface mismatch, that makes dealing with these packages more complex and in need of special casing, etc. So… > However, > > E: chiark-tcl-applet source: malformed-debian-changelog-version 1.0-1~ > (for native) > > For the reasons above I disagree with calling this an error. > Previously it was a warning. (Full disclosure: I know the dpkg > maintainer disagrees with my position here.) …would you be amenable to instead change the way you version these kind of packages, and use some other marker instead of «-»? Say «+» or a word like «rev» like in «1.0rev1» or similar construct? Which would give you the properties you look for, while not messing with the semantics of the source and version formats, so that we can keep them consistent? I am also, as mentioned on d-d, already in the process to start obsoleting this in dpkg-dev, and already prepared an initial patch for dpkg yesterday [O], because we currently only have 33 such packages in the archive, where I have the impression most if not all (except at least for the one you maintain and the python default packages) seem due to packaging error. [O] <https://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/tmp/0001-Dpkg-Source-Package-V1-Check-version-format-matching.patch> Thanks, Guillem
