On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 04:33:40AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm just guessing those sources where created and extracted manually, > probably around the time when the “new source format” got introduced, > and where maintainers might have not switched to the new tools yet. > > > <http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/Debian-1.2/main/source/README.source-unpack> > > I'm a bit wary of adding a force option, even if only for format 1.0, > to allow something that was never allowed in the first place, also > taking into account there's source packages in ancient releases that > are in the old format that dpkg-source does not know either. Given > the above, in principle I'm tending towards not adding such an option > to allow wrong fuzz, but I'll still ponder about this one for a bit.
I see, and I understand your reasoning / concern. FWIW (and of very marginal importance) for my specific sources.d.n use case I'll have to add manual extraction of very old source packages anyhow, so making it work also for "broken" .dsc is not a big deal. More to the point, I guess the question you need to ask/answer yourself is what is the intended semantics of "dpkg-source -x". Is it the tool meant to be able to extract all source packages that have ever been generated following the documented Debian source formats? Or rather is it the tool meant to be able to extract all "valid" (for a notion of "valid" that, as we have seen, have drifted over time) Debian source packages that have ever existed in Debian releases? Picking one gives an answer to the more specific question of adding or not a --force flag. Thanks for your time on this, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . [email protected] . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
