Re: RFS: fsprotect (try #2)
Hello,
On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> Excerpts from Neil Williams's message of mar abr 21 14:53:13 -0300 2009:
> > 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.
>
> Neither do I really, but I failed to see what's the gain to use the native
> versioning packaging.
You'll understand this if you attempt to split it. What will go in debian/ and
what will be left out? Unless you're willing to accept a non-native package
that:
a) includes debian specific scripts outside of debian/
b) contains debian specific scripts in .orig.tar.gz
c) uploads a new .orig.tar.gz when other debian packages change
you should be OK with fsprotect as debian native.
Honestly, if you are willing to accept the above I can change that to non-
native. But if you are not, then there is really no point in doing that. To do
that I'll have to move most parts from outside of debian/ directory inside it.
Even the documentation is debian specific. This means that fsprotect's .orig
will be useless and that the whole functionality will be achieved from scripts
that are included in .diff.
> In cases like giving support to stable, NMUs are easier and cleaner for
> non-native versioned packages. Or in a derivative distribution, if they need
> to change a native package, should they build another native or should they
> make them non-native one? (for example, ubuntu considers apt as native, with
> version 0.7.20.2ubuntu6)
For NMUs, I fail to see how an NMU may happen without actually forking
fsprotect (even if the fork merges back latter) because of the whole
functionality being tied to Debian. Having a version similar to 1.0.2+nmu1
seems OK to me.
Please have a look at the source first, or at least accept that for fsprotect
(and for this one only) it is somehow not-clever to make it non-native.
And FWIW, fsprotect may be far more tied to debian than apt is because of the
percentage of the distribution dependent parts. i.e. ubuntu most probably
cannot use fsprotect as-is.
Reply to: