On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation > > where you sometimes have native Debian revisions. > > > > * you are producing a package where you have distinct upstream and > > debian branches, and you cannot control the upstream version number. > > Doesn't this make it 'not a native debian package'? yes, exactly, that's the problem. > I thought the whole point of debian native packages was that there was > no 'upstream' and it was only for debian so you _are_ in control of > the source, the versioning and the releases? yes, that was the idea when native packages were introduced over 20 ago, when there were hardly any Debian forks, and certainly no CI systems and other automated systems which 'constantly fork'. > As soon as that stops > being true then should one not shift to making it a standard > 'upstream+debian revision' non-native package? yes, we should convert all native packages in our archive, the idea of a native package has been obsoleted for long. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Humans despise their genitals so much they often use them as metaphors for humans they dislike.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature