Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Russ, On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:22:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Specifically, I'd like to ask the TC to come up with policy on native > > packages and debian revisions using its power under 6.1.1. > > As a Policy Editor, I support this request. As a TC member I admit disliking this.

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 16/03/22 at 23:54 +, Wookey wrote: > On 2022-03-16 15:29 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > In practice, the vast majority of packages are maintained in git on > > salsa. The maintainers use those git repositories as the PFM. > > > but almost everyone is already treating git as primary. > >

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne writes: Helmut> Hi Russ, Helmut> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:22:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> > Specifically, I'd like to ask the TC to come up with policy on >> native > packages and debian revisions using its power under >> 6.1.1. >>

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Sam Hartman writes: >> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes: > Russ> Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms > Russ> with ambiguous meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really > Russ> need a term that captures "is a packaging of an upstream > Russ> software

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes: Russ> Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms Russ> with ambiguous meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really Russ> need a term that captures "is a packaging of an upstream Russ> software package with a separate

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Felix Lechner
Hi, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:57 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > source package format While everyone is receptive to new labels, I prefer "upload format" or "archive format". Either one helps us to distinguish the intermediate product from any workflow objects a maintainer may have. > single

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi Ian, On 15/03/22 at 16:29 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Part I - belss continued use of 1.0 native format, for now at least: > > 1. Declare explicitly that there is nothing wrong with a package with > a native format, but a non-native version number. > > 2. Request that the dpkg

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

2022-03-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Helmut Grohne writes: > Do you think it would be impossible to move forward on this matter in a > consensus-based way? I don't know. I have some reasons to be dubious, but it's possible that I'm being excessively pessimistic. > Yes, please. Though as is evidenced in the replies to your mail,