[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> 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 (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: