Hi, On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote: > > That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was > > just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of > > existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate, > > since existing tools would work with those formats. > > The (theoretical) format that I gave as example was precisely this: it > generates a "3.0 (quilt)" source package using a VCS repository as input.
I guess what we should have is additional line in it or additional file to record vcs used for packaging which will not interface with the basic operation of other tools. We have now (as I know from typical packages.): debian/source/format debian/source/lintian-override what's wrong with having another. Some tool may use it ... some can just ignore... Anyway, with 3.0 format, we are moving away from diff format to allow binary image without awkward hack. This is good. We now have packaging data stored in separated and standardized for easy inspection with intuitive structure. These are the plus for everyone who have extra time to update package. (We should not force such update because we are Debian ...) Osamu PS: Making distribution wise change for consistency has been challenge for Debian. We have been slow. That is good in some way... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100331114728.ga4...@osamu.debian.net