Re: Bug#899221: [medium size project] break up emacs-goodies-el into many elpafied packages

[Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>]

Hello David,

On Sat, Jun 09 2018, David Bremner wrote:

>> I think they should probably be native packages.
>
> Perhaps. There is this:
>
>          https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/emacs-goodies
>          https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063750
>
> If other (non-downstream) distros are going to have them, it's maybe
> better to have a real upstream to centralize bug reporting.

I don't see why the Debian BTS couldn't be used for that.

> In any case, they need an "elpa name" to e.g. go in the define-package
> form and the binary package name.
>
> What are the advantages of being native packages?

There seem to be two schools of thought here:

- native packages are to be used when the package's release process is
  uploading to Debian unstable

- native packages are to be used when the package was written especially
  for Debian

Despite the fact that Policy says the latter, I'm inclined towards the
former, so the advantage from my point of view is semantic correctness :)

> I don't propose to have seperate upstream repos, only branches.

Even if Nick goes with non-native I think this is overkill.  You can
just use a single branch containing both 1.2.3 and debian/1.2.3-1
release tags.  Downstreams can just ignore the debian/ dir.  See
https://git.spwhitton.name/git-remote-gcrypt for an example of this.

-- 
Sean Whitton