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

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 (ksh@cis.ufl.edu put this on
Tshirts in '93)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: