On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 10:42:04AM -0500, cd_smith@ou.edu wrote:
> > IANAD [I am not a developer] but it looks to me that if the program is
> > useful for the general public (not only Debian users) it's better to
> > not make it a native debian package -- what if someone else takes
> > maintenance of it when you don't have time anymore; will it need to be
> > converted?
>
> I'm not a developer either, but as far as I understand things, making a
> package a native Debian package doesn't make it only usable on Debian. It
> just means that there's a debian/ directory in the source distribution
> that contains Debian packaging info. Non-native packages, on the other
> hand, have a diff file to add the debian/ directory. It would still be
> possible to build and use the package on other architectures... it'd just
> ignore the debian/ directory.
OK, if that's what you mean by "native Debian package" then I agree. I
thought more about the versioning issue, i.e. that you won't have a
package revision number after the program version (1.0-1) but just the
program version (1.0) as the version of the package. Besides the
maintainership issue, IMHO it's good to separate releases that only
modify Debian behaviour from releases that modify the program itself.
--
Alex Shnitman | http://www.debian.org
alexsh@hectic.net, alexsh@linux.org.il +-----------------------
http://alexsh.hectic.net UIN 188956 PGP key on web page
E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA
Attachment:
pgpC8nJk9gX6g.pgp
Description: PGP signature