On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Brian May wrote: > My only concern with the policy change, is what defines a "native > package"? Whatever defined it before. It is not in policy, AFAIK. Probably some doc or even code in the dpkg package is the authoritative source for the definition... Just like dpkg-source's abilities have proven to be the authoritative source for what goes inside a .orig.tar.gz. > I would say, something along the lines of: it is up to the maintainer > to decide if a native package is used or not, but packages generally > should not[1] be native if upstream author != maintainer. Personally, I'd rather not insert that kind of stuff in policy. There is no reason at all to deprecate usage of the native package source format. And it is kind of off-topic for this thread, even. IMHO if you write a long piece about which source package format one should chose for given scenarios, and why... Drop it into the packaging guide where it belongs, and where it will be helpful. > (do we need to include anything on uploading a native package if the > last one was non-native and vice versa? eg. only allow it if the This should already be forbidden due to the package pool (and I'd be very surprised if Katie let you do it). It goes in the same boat as trying to upload two different .orig.tar.gz for the same upstream version. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Attachment:
pgpvI8z6JP_7L.pgp
Description: PGP signature