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

Re: No native packages?

* Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>, 2013-02-02, 13:56:
if you are going to patch the package you might as well do the one line change from "3.0 (native)" to "3.0 (quilt)", and rename the source tarball to add «.orig».
That's a good solution for derivatives, not so much for NMUs or backports.

As I mentioned on my previous mail, I consider that a nice feature. To me NMUing or backporting a native package is the equivalent of an external and uninvolved person to send a mail to, say, the postgresql developers, telling them that you've released a new version of the upstream project for them... on the upstream server.

Taking into account that the distribution archive and BTS are the hosting site for the native package, an NMU is a versionspace and file release takeover, and stomps over previously released versions and supercedes them, which might be confusing for downstreams (like non-derivatives), as the NMU might end up being rejected, or reimplemented in a different and incompatible way, etc.

So what do you propose instead? It's not like native packages get NMUed because of great entertainment value of the NMU process, but because there's no better choice.

(Random data point: I have 14 packages with versions indicating they are NMUed native packages installed on my system. Some of them have priority standard or higher.)

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: