Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Am 17.08.23 um 14:25 schrieb Mark Brown: Would it not be more sensible to just require that the format always be specified? The problem with that is that most of the implicitly 1.0 packages are essentially unmaintained. Making them RC buggy intentionally by requiring an explicit format will not help but drive many packages out of Debian or shifts the update burden to other DDs who have enough work already.
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 17.08.23 um 14:25 schrieb Mark Brown: > > Would it not be more sensible to just require that the format always be > > specified? > The problem with that is that most of the implicitly 1.0 packages are > essentially unmaintained. Making them RC buggy intentionally by requiring an > explicit format will not help but drive many packages out of Debian or > shifts the update burden to other DDs who have enough work already. Right, but I'm just generally unclear what the upside is from changing the default at all. Changing the default under packages is also going to make them rc buggy. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:51:44PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 16.08.23 um 16:40 schrieb Mark Brown: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:33:40PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > > > If you do not want to move to format 3.0, please at least specify 1.0 > > > format > > > so that dpkg-source can move to default 3.0 format. > > If you're forcing people to specify the format why does the default > > matter? > I am not forcing anybody. Think about this: If every implicit 1.0 package > that has upstream changes on its program makes the version explicit, every > implicitly 1.0 packages that does not have an upstream diff can still be > built with 3.0 semantics. > The total 1.0 packages are ~450 but if ~140 of them added a > debian/source/format with 1.0, the defaut could be moved. Would it not be more sensible to just require that the format always be specified? If the format isn't changed again it makes no difference, if the format is changed then we would just be in the same position over again. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Am 16.08.23 um 16:40 schrieb Mark Brown: On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:33:40PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: If you do not want to move to format 3.0, please at least specify 1.0 format so that dpkg-source can move to default 3.0 format. If you're forcing people to specify the format why does the default matter? I am not forcing anybody. Think about this: If every implicit 1.0 package that has upstream changes on its program makes the version explicit, every implicitly 1.0 packages that does not have an upstream diff can still be built with 3.0 semantics. The total 1.0 packages are ~450 but if ~140 of them added a debian/source/format with 1.0, the defaut could be moved.
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:33:40PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: > If you do not want to move to format 3.0, please at least specify 1.0 format > so that dpkg-source can move to default 3.0 format. If you're forcing people to specify the format why does the default matter? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
If you do not want to move to format 3.0, please at least specify 1.0 format so that dpkg-source can move to default 3.0 format.
Bug#1007510: tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format
Source: tua Version: 4.3-14 Severity: wishlist Tags: bookworm sid Usertags: format1.0 format1.0-nkp-nv 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. It was noticed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00096.html that the conversion for this package is likely trivial, and builds bit-by-bit identical binary packages. This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00074.html Thanks Lucas
