Bug#706904: Chinese Checkers RFS review
On 09/20/2013 10:06 AM, Dave Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:18:18AM -0400, Dave Steele wrote:
>>> I'm not sure we are clear with terms here. The newbie is the upstream,
>>> and he has chosen to include the debian directory in his main
>>> repository. Should he choose to rev the packaging, upstream is
>>> coordinated, by definition.
Please, ask upstream not to include /debian in master - put /debian in a
branch by itself to be merged with master as needed.
>> As such, a trivial debian package change would trigger a new upstream
>> release. If this is the intent, that's fineish in my view, but remember,
>> this screws up and chance of cross-distro work (since a change to RPM
>> local stuff, as example, would trigger a new upstream, and a no change
>> rebuild in Debian to match)
>>
>> I really discourage this usage a lot. Native packages must be for
>> packages local to Debian only.
>>
>
> This raises an interesting question on this package. He is using
> github tags to identify releases. Currently, the tags page is
> providing native-friendly tars for each version.
>
> So how does he tag packaging-only updates - by tagging at the debian
> rev level, then adjusting watch to ignore the dash? I don't see how
> this provides less screwage to other distributions.
>
> In any case, it sounds like the guidance on this ticket is that either
> solution is fineish.
Not to my knowledge. A native package should only be one that is solely
internal to Debian and is not usable as an upstream software for
anything else. There are quite a few readings on this topic.
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What.27s_wrong_with_upstream_shipping_a_debian.2F_directory.3F
https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/on_debian_directories_in_upstream_tarballs/
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22upstream+debian+directory%22 (quite a
few mailing list posts, bug reports, etc.)
--
Kind regards,
Michael
Reply to: