Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
Lucas Nussbaum dixit: >column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi ) I’m apparently affected at least for cvs, but that package has another very interesting use case for format 1.0: Its .diff.gz file can *directly* be used as patch file in no less than *two* other packaging systems (BSD ports and OpenSuSE build‐ service RPM), and I *do* use it there. It’s possible that other downstream consumers exist (I was talking a bit with someone from Gentoo but don’t recall whether anything came out of that). So, no, the cvs package will not be switching to 3.0 formats, in order to not break things for downstream users. (Similar cases exist where compression formats for the .deb binaries are set to specific values when they are reused; cvs, again, does that so dowstreams can take the Tₑχ/LᴬTᴇΧ-generated texinfo PDFs from that and skip the chore of porting texlive to the OS themselves.) bye, //mirabilos PS: Can that CGI output a dd-list? I’m unsure I found all… -- Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer. -- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >... > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist > bugs using the following template: > > -->8 > Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format > Severity: wishlist > Usertags: format1.0 > > Dear maintainer, > > This package is among the few (1.9%) that still use source format 1.0 in > bookworm. Please upgrade it to source format 3.0, as (1) this format has many > advantages, as documented in https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) > this contributes to standardization of packaging practices. > > Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software > could maybe benefit from a refresh. It might be a good opportunity to > look at other aspects as well. > > This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html >... josch already has tested patches for more than half of the packages, starting by submitting bugs for these packages with these patches will avoid work for maintainers and result in faster fixing of the bugs. > Lucas cu Adrian
Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >... > > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist > > bugs using the following template: > > > > -->8 > > Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format > > Severity: wishlist > > Usertags: format1.0 > > > > Dear maintainer, > > > > This package is among the few (1.9%) that still use source format 1.0 in > > bookworm. Please upgrade it to source format 3.0, as (1) this format has > > many > > advantages, as documented in https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; > > (2) > > this contributes to standardization of packaging practices. > > > > Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software > > could maybe benefit from a refresh. It might be a good opportunity to > > look at other aspects as well. > > > > This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html > >... > > josch already has tested patches for more than half of the packages, > starting by submitting bugs for these packages with these patches will > avoid work for maintainers and result in faster fixing of the bugs. I just sent a followup to the relevant bugs (it's the "trivial fix" column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi ) Thanks Lucas
Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
On 10/03/22 at 21:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of > packages for each category. The packages count is currently: > (1.1): 53 packages > (1.2): 424 packages > (2): 149 packages Actually it's: (1.1): 60 packages (1.2): 431 packages (2): 135 (There was a logic error in the queries) Lucas
Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0 [revised proposal]
Hi, Based on the discussion, I propose the following: Let's split the 626 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0 into three categories (1.1), (1.2), (2): (1) packages with are very unlikely to use a VCS-based workflow (not maintained by Debian X; not using a VCS; or referring to a broken VCS repository; or using a VCS but not having any direct changes outside patches) (1.1) Those in (1) that are key packages (1.2) Those in (1) that are not key packages (2) packages which might be using a VCS-based workflow https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of packages for each category. The packages count is currently: (1.1): 53 packages (1.2): 424 packages (2): 149 packages Packages in (2) need a deeper analysis to understand how VCS-based workflows, or 3.0 (quilt), can be adapted to better support each other. So let's not do anything about them for now, and focus on (1.1) and (1.2). For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist bugs using the following template: -->8 Subject: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format Severity: wishlist Usertags: format1.0 Dear maintainer, This package is among the few (1.9%) that still use source format 1.0 in bookworm. Please upgrade it to source format 3.0, as (1) this format has many advantages, as documented in https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this contributes to standardization of packaging practices. Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software could maybe benefit from a refresh. It might be a good opportunity to look at other aspects as well. This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html Thanks Lucas -->8 Then, I propose that we do not discuss upgrading the severity for bugs in (1.2) before all packages in (1.1) are fixed (or there's a good reason not to fix the remaining ones). That way, 1/ people motivated to do the work can do it using the normal NMU procedure (and use the bugs for coordination). 2/ nobody is forced to do work packages until the packages that we absolutely need to fix are fixed. I will file bugs against the 53 packages in (1.1) soon as the number is reasonably low, and I don't think this is controversial (with wishlist severity). I will wait a few more days before filing the bugs for packages in (1.2). My main motivation for filing bugs against packages in (1.2) ASAP is that I hope that filing the bugs will trigger some maintainers to fix their packages, if they had not realized that their packages were still using 1.0. Lucas
