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

Re: RFS: fsprotect (try #2)


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 

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

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: