Re: Of the use of native packages for programs not specific to Debian.
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:51:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
What I'm trying to discuss here is that Debian Developers who package
their own software as Debian native packages should be allowed to do so
Hi Wouter and everybody,
it seems to me that the difficulties in this discussion come from the fact that
’native’ is used to mean two different things:
- Packages using a dpkg format called ‘native’.
- Software made by Debian for Debian.
No, I don't think so, because this was the core of discussion (see the subject).
But I think there was some confusion because I started this sub-thread as
question of "debian/" directory on upstream, thus having Debian as
"downstream distribution" (and interpreting upstream as "upstream distribution")
Wouter takes the more orthodox interpretation, where we don't have any "upstream
distribution".
I still think that converting a (non debian specific) package into native package
is not nice to downstreams, and probably egoistic (= debian centric).
But anyway it is not a big issue, so I don't think we should continue discussing
it. Every developer will decide if going native or not.
[ My mails in this week was about a new possible problem that I discovered,
but it is more about dpkg-source 3.0 then the native format ]
This creates confusion, as there are arguments in favor of using the format
called ‘native’ for software not specific to Debian, but on the othe hand there
is a general perception that if a package uses a native format, the software
has special ties to Debian. Interestingly, when the format ‘3.0 (git)’ will be
accepted in our archive, there may be a lot of ‘native’ programs that will be
using a non-native package format.
AFAIK the only supported format will be "3.0 (native)", "3.0 (quilt)". The other
3.0 format were considered "experimental" and discouraged.
ciao
cate
Reply to: