#1007510 tua: please consider upgrading to 3.0 source format

Package:
src:tua
Source:
tua
Submitter:
Lucas Nussbaum
Date:
2025-08-17 17:49:50 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
Tags:
#1007510#5
Date:
2022-03-15 07:52:05 UTC
From:
To:
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
#1007510#12
Date:
2023-08-16 14:33:40 UTC
From:
To:
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.
#1007510#17
Date:
2023-08-16 14:40:59 UTC
From:
To:
If you're forcing people to specify the format why does the default
matter?
#1007510#22
Date:
2023-08-16 14:51:44 UTC
From:
To:
Am 16.08.23 um 16:40 schrieb Mark Brown:
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.
#1007510#27
Date:
2023-08-17 12:25:28 UTC
From:
To:
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.
#1007510#32
Date:
2023-08-17 14:47:35 UTC
From:
To:
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.
#1007510#37
Date:
2023-08-17 14:34:56 UTC
From:
To:
Am 17.08.23 um 14:25 schrieb Mark Brown:

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.