Re: native packages? (Re: Introducting Debian Trends: historical graphs about Debian packaging practices, and "packages smells")

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

    Holger> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
    >> 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 [...]

    Holger> ok, sorry, I ment to say: I see no point whatsoever in
    Holger> native packages.  AFAICS there are no advantages, just
    Holger> downsides.

I work on a lot of packages that don't really produce upstream tarballs.
It's painful and makes the workflow less fun to have to go deal with
upstream tarballs myself and I don't think it adds anything to the
workflow.  Upstream tarballs are perhaps nice if upstream actually
produces them (although I think even that is a discussion we may want to
have long-term as we move everything to git).

However if my sources are in git, git is the definitive format for
thinking about things, and the dsc I'm producing is only for the
convenience of the archive, I don't want to deal with an upstream
tarball.
This is even more true if I happen to be using dgit.

--Sam