ubuntu-packaging-guide-team team mailing list archive

[Andrew Starr-Bochicchio <a.starr.b@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't feel strongly about keeping that language, but I should note
that it is based on language from lintian:

missing-debian-source-format

Explicitly selecting a source format by putting the format in
debian/source/format is recommended. This allows for future removal of
the 1.0 default for the package source format and, depending on the
source format, may allow unambiguous declaration of whether this package
is native or non-native.

If you don't have a reason to stay with the old format for this package,
please consider switching to "3.0 (quilt)" (for packages with a separate
upstream tarball) or to "3.0 (native)" (for Debian native packages).

If you wish to keep using the old format, please create that file and
put "1.0" in it to be explicit about the source package version. If you
have problems with the 3.0 format, the dpkg maintainers are interested
in hearing, at debian-dpkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the (technical) reasons why
the new formats do not suit you.

http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-debian-source-format.html

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Packaging Guide Team, which is subscribed to Ubuntu Packaging Guide.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/792386

Title:
  Source Format Discussion Inaccurate

Status in Ubuntu Packaging Guide:
  New

Bug description:
  http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/debian-dir-
  overview.html

  It says:

  "If for some reason, you wish to keep using the old format, please
  create this file and put 1.0 in it to be explicit about the source
  package version. This allows for the future removal of the 1.0 default
  for the package source format."

  The dpkg maintainers have explicitly abandoned the goal of switching
  the default so this rationale is obsolete.  It's not clear there is
  any reason to add source/format with 1.0 since it will behave the same
  as none at all.  Recommend that this be deleted.