Hi! Due to how Gulliem expresses himself I find it hard to follow what the core argument or request here is, but looking at the examples one can slowly piece together what is special about them:
> When the consistency and coherence check was introduced for 3.0 formats, > this affected: > > - 0 packages in «3.0 (quilt)» format. > - 9 packages in «3.0 (native)» format, most of which seemed like > accidental packaging mistakes. > > > For 1.0 format(s), this is the classification of the affected packages > over time: > > - Current affected packages (10), and maintainers (6): > > ,--- > $ Sources=$(apt-get indextargets \ > --format '$(FILENAME)' 'Identifier: Sources') > $ /usr/lib/apt/apt-helper cat-file $Sources | grep-dctrl \ > -n -sPackage -FFormat '1.0' -a \ > -FVersion '-' -a --not -FFiles '.diff.' > chiark-tcl-applet > chroma > python3-defaults > rust-derive-deftly > spigot > sympathy > userv-utils > valgrind-if-available > xbs > xtruss > `--- The topic seems related to Ian's drive to start using the 1.0 source format again for new packages, like he did in xtruss, despite my recommendation and ignoring the example of how the same can and should be done with format 3.0 (https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/issues/396). I suggest the changes in this Bug#1107137 would be postponed for now and the format discussed at the next DebConf.
