[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: b5

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:55 +0200, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:32:16PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > Native packages should ideally only be packages that have no real use
> > outside of Debian.
> Really?  I've never seen such a guideline (although I admit it's been a
> long time since I read the relevant documents).  In fact, the Debian
> Developer's Reference, section 5.4, seems to suggest that the difference
> is purely technical and has no political or social implications.  If you
> could show me some document that explains whether and why native
> packages are not preferred for software that could live outside Debian,
> I'd appreciate that very much.

I'm not sure if it's actually clearly written down, so it might be more
of an opinion, but it's customary at least to package debian-specific
things as native and others as non-native packages.

I'm not sure where you're getting the political and social aspects from,
as I am only talking about technical aspects.

If someone is packaging your software for other distributions and you're
using a non-native package, it's very clear which part is the shared
part by all distributions, and which are the Debian-specific changes
that are being made. This would e.g. also make an NMU more transparent.

It's your call, but since making them non-native is not really that much
more work, I'd recommend doing it that way.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: