Re: Of the use of native packages for programs not specific to Debian.
On Wed, Sep 23 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And that, I think, may serve as a guiding criteria for whether
>> one should make a package native or not. With my native packages
>> (kernel-package, ucf, and devotee), I do not _have_ an upstrem process,
>> nor an upstream "distribution" or tarball; and thus there is no
>> difference in process for a packaging change or a feature addition --
>> which makes it clear to me that these are native packages.
> Whenever you guys bring the argument of convenience to make a package
> native, I imagine that RedHat, Novell and company did the same with
> half of GNOME packages, and I had to look at Fedora and SuSE's pages
> checking for updates, report bugs in their bugzillas, look if a new
> upstream version only changed the spec file or also the code, and I
> want to cry myself to sleep.
I think you have not looked at the details of what I said: very
little of my argument has to do with convenience; it has to do with
artifacts of a separate upstream entity. If the package does exist as an
upstream entity, it will be reflected in the processs; and the lack of
such a process (having an upstream tarball that is available separate
from the debian upload, for instance) serves as a hint. Convenience has
little to do with it.
ps: The new devotee package, for instance, is unlikely to remain a
debian native, since it would make sense to have it not tied only to
debian. Again, convenience does not enter the equation.
linux: the choice of a GNU generation (firstname.lastname@example.org put this on
Tshirts in '93)
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C