Re: native packages? (Re: Introducting Debian Trends: historical graphs about Debian packaging practices, and "packages smells")
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
the package is deliberately native, whereas a 1.0 native package is
indistinguishable from a package that was intended to be 1.0 non-native
but ended up native because the maintainer forgot to have the orig.tar.gz
in the right place when building it.
(The presence or absence of a -revision in the version number should in
theory be well-correlated with non-native or native packaging, but this
doesn't always hold - for example python3-defaults is a native package
with a non-native-style version number. Perhaps Policy should require
packages like python3-defaults to use a native-style version number like
3.7.3+1 instead of 3.7.3-1?)
dpkg also compresses 3.0 (native) packages with xz by default.
smcv
Reply to: