Re: No native packages?
On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> In my opinion, a native package is the wrong choice when your only
> arguments for it is convenience.
>
> That's not a strong argument
To the contrary, I think that convenience of one or another
format is the *only* argument.
What you've listed as counter-argument are cases were it isn't
convenient, IMO. And that's why we design packaging tools and
format: so that they are convenient to use. I don't think you
should feel bad because of that kind of laziness. I see it as
an optimization of your work flaw rather than laziness (that's
just different wording for the exact same idea in a more
positive way).
Also, I'm sorry but I don't buy your argument that newbies
would see bad native-package examples and reproduce it. Anyone
who looked a bit into -mentors@l.d.o (and I know you do) will
be able to tell that they do use native packages anyway by
simple mistake and lack of knowledge. Repeatedly, we have to
explain anyway.
Also, I don't understand why you think an NMU becomes awkward
if it deals with a native package. Could you explain?
On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> There are good arguments *for* a native package, as Joey listed, and
> they can work well if upstream == maintainer. But as soon as that
> relationship breaks, for whatever reason, care needs to be taken both
> upstream and both in packaging to ensure a smooth transition. I've seen
> that fail before, though, not with native packages.
I fail to understand why this would be a problem for the 2 native
package I maintain (eg: debpear and openstack-pkg-tools). The
new maintainer would just take over the work (as usual?)...
Thomas
Reply to: