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 like. 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 ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpMYhVR31q6D.pgp
Description: PGP signature