Re: trayer_1.1_i386.changes REJECTED
2009/9/4 Gunnar Wolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Wouter Verhelst dijo [Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:44PM +0200]:
>> > > * Upstream has abandoned the program, so the package is now Debian
>> > > native.
>> > Switching upstreams does not make a package native.
>> How so? There is no reason why a package where the upstream and the
>> Debian Developer are one and the same person could not be native.
>> I know it is fancy and modern to think that Debian native packages
>> should only be used for things that are specific to the Debian
>> infrastructure, but there is nothing in policy that requires that, and
>> indeed several packages (including, e.g., offlineimap) are distributed
>> as such.
> Why should it be Debian-native? Do you want other distributions
> carrying it to necessarily include your debian/*? Do you want to
> throw stones in the way of Debian derivatives by being unable to do
> packaging-specific changes while keeping track of your upstream
FWIW, I wrote this answer (but did not send it):
There is no point pretending there is an upstream when there clearly
isn't. Pretending there is an upstream just forces me put every
change into patches, thus forcing me to use a patch system (which the
package did not use), and since I use hg.debian.org together with
hg-buildpackage, it forces me to have two repositories, one for (the
non-existent) upstream and one for for debian package. I know this is
my problem, but then I guess it is my choice how I deal with that
If there at some point are other people/distributions interested in
using the code, then they/I can just revive the upstream packaging.
Sorry, but I am that kind of an Agile person...
But I figured that fighting about it was even more work than going
with the path system. So, I have now uploaded a non-native package.
Side-note: I am hacking away on a new version of hg-buildpackage but
have not yet been in touch with John Goerzen about this because it is
not implemented in Haskell. :-)
Jens Peter Secher.
_DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_.
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?