Bug#976246: marked as done (dpkg-source: Reference detection of native vs non-native source package type)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1780795501-1199621-0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Your message dated Sun, 7 Jun 2026 03:22:49 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#976246: dpkg-source: Reference detection of native=
 vs non-native source package type
has caused the Debian Bug report #976246,
regarding dpkg-source: Reference detection of native vs non-native source p=
ackage type
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


--=20
976246: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D976246
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems

------------=_1780795501-1199621-0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Dec 2020 04:17:05 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2018-09-13) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.7 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DIGITS_LETTERS,
	DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HAS_PACKAGE,MD5_SHA1_SUM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 10; hammy, 150; neutral, 80; spammy,
	0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--dpkgsource, 0.000-+--dpkg-source,
	 0.000-+--UD:gappssmtp.com, 0.000-+--UD:20150623.gappssmtp.com,
	0.000-+--Maintainer
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::635]:45357)
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1kkJZh-0005O6-Jm
	for [email protected]; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 04:17:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id qw4so565036ejb.12
        for <[email protected]>; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 20:17:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=rainforce-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=3EPWvkneYLieY45BMPor9FGoNMyGY2EKe0cXs5UyhI8=;
        b=HxGpynC1f1Dvfs1wHPYM79LJ9LWalrrjdbopABdwaVsueDw53T6Wf4W+NStDcLwiH5
         UOwSEf797YdynZg6pFhaTeRaH8ZP42tRVtgaTp7LZkgzTmnpCD4l2xGUfldPH68uW7sY
         /2le4n+gsQVPVSnKec5HEcdrpwY4wDM5VUD0BBiPoSJYVCQBv+i/wq57fbakWHUsrauJ
         HQC+chP4480BETNOqH74y9cRVXwhjh3fTiSAPinaSvDK9sWP0+tWdrqhEf8sxyYe0Ae5
         tLVmsKxEK5rtd+lBq6ECcocDzP7D2cTUfyPPLr6xS4r3dvuJkgW8kk7Gt/Vqb1MraJDc
         RSDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=3EPWvkneYLieY45BMPor9FGoNMyGY2EKe0cXs5UyhI8=;
        b=m2J114xJLDFTPc779Gic1pjjsbSfRUnjo/+cz0BpkCG0aK2E6vhx9O9EnBRycMDYdy
         81weX2Hh93m31yBczkn/4kUfl406ExqbzxggTEZPutdIhAiHY9ht3YxU44sq55VpQA3Q
         NzPlivVeAPDnWnrqK5BpHXlXUdcQAVv3Gxt11q5+gYmcEUf6zyh4e74lpBpTaCKXPL3U
         Oh7XAchlPSKhlCQHrQXdAUjFRmLTgxZ0TMx8eo4uuZbv9llhLTw6eBUW02+ABYxhHJov
         VPCYlfUKi2sWx8QuSXfnuC/B86PTMLNyr6OnRvsfD/S2wb7eziPG1Gp7pJQ8JWnB8gKp
         Jkmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ut/1gAsaMsO87DxID/CY1iZQFadGEQZ85zPasVagswOLeD8IK
	NBO16RrnOMYviFyhG/YzcEl75Mwqu8Y6/aeBcJAqiwQOC4TKrA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyK2x3weHMYrHgLA3/emsRrz68lPcs0/yc7jqinLEOf97tarJ7ZP4kASahEJjowBGE9v3lgQlESLAeku5liY6A=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d9cf:: with SMTP id qk15mr548654ejb.453.1606882623363;
 Tue, 01 Dec 2020 20:17:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK=cShjyj1+WjGmTQ31HMxdomZdjYD_4Jx63dAgFVNDX8puYyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=cShjyj1+WjGmTQ31HMxdomZdjYD_4Jx63dAgFVNDX8puYyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anatoli Babenia <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:16:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CAK=cShitHoCCtWAsyQ2s3GWF1sqyzmwR1saeSrMMvBf5GiB-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: dpkg-source: Reference detection of native vs non-native source
 package type
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Delivered-To: [email protected]

Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.7
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-source

Dear Maintainer,

It would help greatly if `dpkg-source` reported native or non-native
package type.

    -dpkg-source: info: using source format '1.0'
    +dpkg-source: info: using non-native source format '1.0'

There is no information about native vs non-native format in this wiki page
https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/SourcePackage

Mentors FAQ explains it in a lot of detail, but still hard to understand.
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_is_the_difference_between_a_native_Debian_
package_and_a_non-native_package.3F

`dpkg-source` code does explain the logic either. Detection of source format
relies on checking command line flags, and it does not make sense to me.

    my $v = Dpkg::Version->new($self->{fields}->{'Version'});
    if ($sourcestyle =~ m/[kpursKPUR]/) {
        error(g_('non-native package version does not contain a revision'))
            if $v->is_native();
    } else {
        # FIXME: This will become fatal in the near future.
        warning(g_('native package version may not have a revision'))
            unless $v->is_native();
    }

https://salsa.debian.org/dpkg-team/dpkg/-/blob/09c9e02046f18f02bf3c3c2533bc557abfdc828c/scripts/Dpkg/Source/Package/V1.pm#L355

It would be nice to see a reference algorithm that detects different package
types. It would help people like me to troubleshoot issues with Debian
packaging faster.

https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/issues/633

I was not aware of the differences between native and non-native
packages before. Wish I could spend less time discovering this.

------------=_1780795501-1199621-0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: (at 976246-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2026 01:22:53 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2024-03-25) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.5 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
	DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FROMDEVELOPER,
	HAS_BUG_NUMBER,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 40; hammy, 150; neutral, 54; spammy,
	0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--dpkgsource, 0.000-+--dpkg-source,
	 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:36ff, 0.000-+--H*r:36ff,
	0.000-+--H*RT:sk:master.
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from master.debian.org ([2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4001]:39886)
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1wW2E0-0051ic-2O
	for [email protected];
	Sun, 07 Jun 2026 01:22:52 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org;
	s=smtpauto.master; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:
	Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
	Content-ID:Content-Description;
	bh=SGtWw6KSrgEzvCt4n/64IrkB9T0Ow9Jj+2eyLmTIdaw=; b=P+E0qQ7vF56tL+Wor6gGmC/glI
	foIFB10feGEf8aiQN5ZWJ+lm8HvMqHfFreYU3kEH8rvm1Jpeb5lZRWypH9ePo5OZR2dVAEKXJfDNy
	uVQjVeIhYFHC/nPFSlXCv7NllcKTH/ritrmAkP6i2rPxhgTN/4RvE2adtOhe0jU4KRbDNMV/kK0Fz
	s4Lxax0gKi5qSzXZfiRriW6gveU8jnO6QvM+HTZMQJ/9eVmABy+hdVO+W93ZUlKDFaU0fA5ZbUe16
	W8nQb81po0cdIxWjswHnfQszPvoK+xgXSWagBd1oTSE2Fs6HE05DWjKluIOIxUIn8GI+QKE5DIfOw
	y5W8FrDw==;
Received: from guillem by master.debian.org with local (Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1wW2Dz-00CRpW-0X;
	Sun, 07 Jun 2026 01:22:51 +0000
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 03:22:49 +0200
From: Guillem Jover <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Anatoli Babenia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#976246: dpkg-source: Reference detection of native vs
 non-native source package type
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <CAK=cShjyj1+WjGmTQ31HMxdomZdjYD_4Jx63dAgFVNDX8puYyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK=cShitHoCCtWAsyQ2s3GWF1sqyzmwR1saeSrMMvBf5GiB-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK=cShitHoCCtWAsyQ2s3GWF1sqyzmwR1saeSrMMvBf5GiB-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Hi!

On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 04:34:33 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 07:16:52 +0300, Anatoli Babenia wrote:
> > Package: dpkg-dev
> > Version: 1.19.7
> > Severity: normal
> > File: /usr/bin/dpkg-source
> 
> > It would help greatly if `dpkg-source` reported native or non-native
> > package type.
> > 
> >     -dpkg-source: info: using source format '1.0'
> >     +dpkg-source: info: using non-native source format '1.0'
> 
> While I think something like this would be nice, unfortunately I'm afraid
> this cannot be done right now, because there are still package at least
> in Debian that have a mismatched version format compared to their source
> format. See:
> 
>   <https://lintian.debian.org/tags/malformed-debian-changelog-version>
> 
> For most of which I've filed bug reports, see:
> 
>   <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=dpkg-mismatch-source-vs-version-format;[email protected]>
> 
> Unfortunately there are a couple of maintainers that refuse to fix these
> problems, so we cannot currently have coherent semantics. :(

Given that this got worse, and now we have even further conceptual
confusion, I'm not going to be touching this, sorry. Closing now.

Thanks,
Guillem
------------=_1780795501-1199621-0--