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

Re: RFS: fsprotect (try #2)

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:21:18 -0300
Maximiliano Curia <maxy@gnuservers.com.ar> wrote:

> > It was also mentioned on the last thread so I omit that:
> > fsprotect is 100% tied to a distribution. It cannot be an independent program 
> > that is packaged for debian or other distributions. The core functionality of 
> > fsprotect is provided by one init script and one initramfs script/hook and 
> > those are depending *very* much to the distribution. I.e the init script must 
> > run immediately after the filesystems are mounted and before anything else is 
> > ran.
> Anyway, it shouldn't be a native package, native packages need a new release
> to fix anything (packaging, typos, etc), also need a full upload for every
> change.

That is a marginal effect - Arch:any packages still need to be rebuilt
whether it's native or non-native. The main reason for native packages
is functionality, not upload convenience.

> It can be argued if there is any use for native packages anymore, and
> probably there isn't. So, please, don't upload a native package.

On what basis? apt and dpkg are definitely native packages, as are most
other packages that use apt and dpkg directly (like emdebian-*).
Packages that use .deb files in explicit manners are often native too -
unless they also work with .rpm etc.

Packages that are explicitly tied to a single distribution are native
to that distribution. What level of tie is deemed to be above a
threshold sufficient to make the package native is a subject of ongoing
case-by-case discussion.

Other packages that are justifiably native include debhelper and the

I'm not particularly interested in fsprotect per-se, but I don't see
that it cannot be deemed native by those who know more about the kinds
of things it needs to do.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpMYhVR31q6D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: