Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version
Helmut Grohne <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Do you think it would be impossible to move forward on this matter in a
> consensus-based way?
I don't know. I have some reasons to be dubious, but it's possible that
I'm being excessively pessimistic.
> Yes, please. Though as is evidenced in the replies to your mail, I would
> try to avoid "native" and "non-native" as much as possible given the
> existing confusion. I suggest using something like with-revision vs
> without-revision and single-tarball (from your mail) vs
> patches-separated to transport the concepts.
Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms with ambiguous
meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really need a term that captures
"is a packaging of an upstream software package with a separate existence"
versus "exists solely as a Debian package." "with-revision" or
"without-revision" doesn't feel to me like it does this. Native and
non-native do, which is why I was sticking with them, but maybe we can
come up with some other equally-good terminology.
> More and more, it seems to me that we are looking into design work as
> opposed to picking an existing option.
*I* was doing design work, for sure. But I'm not a member of the TC. :)
The point was to offer you a design to consider as part of submitting the
request to the TC.
> In the spirit of consensus: Do you agree that retrying this in a
> consensus-based way is still possible?
If the relevant people required to implement a decision are willing to
tackle it that way, I am certainly willing to participate from the Policy
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>