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