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

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

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms
    Russ> with ambiguous meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really
    Russ> need a term that captures "is a packaging of an upstream
    Russ> software package with a separate existence" versus "exists
    Russ> solely as a Debian package."  "with-revision" or
    Russ> "without-revision" doesn't feel to me like it does this.
    Russ> Native and non-native do, which is why I was sticking with
    Russ> them, but maybe we can come up with some other equally-good
    Russ> terminology.

Why do we need that distinction?

Looking at current policy, 5.6.12 talks about having a debian revision
or not having a debian revision.

Other parts of policy talk about  what parts of the source package there

Why do we need more than these two distinctions.

I think that current policy has mostly left behind the work native
(although their are a few uses still).
My suspicion is that avoiding native allowed us to get a broader
consensus in the policy process.

Why isn't what we have good enough?

Reply to: