Comment 14 for bug 302987

On 8 February 2010 16:17, Morten Kjeldgaard <email address hidden> wrote:
> I've been running 2.0.2 on my hardy server for a while, no problems
> detected. I've attached a debdiff, default format is set to pack-0.92
> which is the default for hardy, please review.

I have some real qualms about changing the default format in the
packaging, so I'm glad you mentioned that you're doing it.

Pros:
- makes it a less bumpy change for people going from 1.3 to 2.0.2; in
particular there is less risk that machines running hardy-backports
will create repositories that can't be read by machines on non-updated
hardy

Cons:
- all other things being equal it's icky to have two things called
version x that behave differently
- in particular there is an increased support version through bzr
2.0.2 being different on hardy-backports to hardy installed from the
ppa, or on karmic, or installed from source
- ... and the same burden for organizations using 2.0 on hardy and say win32
- 'bzr selftest' will probably fail because some tests make
assumptions about the default format
- if you haven't run selftest, we don't know if anything is actually
substantively broken (as opposed to an oversensitive test); there
shouldn't be anything but it kind of goes against the idea of
backports being safe

So on the whole I would suggest you don't change this.

--
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>