Re: Native packages, broken uploads, and debian policy
>>"Henrique" == Henrique M Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
Henrique> However, I could not find anywhere in policy that states
Henrique> that native packages cannot have a debian version field. It
Henrique> clearly states that packages without a debian revision
Henrique> cannot have a '-' in the upstream version field, but that's
Henrique> not the same thing.
Henrique> Are native packages expected to have debian version fields
Henrique> sometimes? If not, policy should probably be clarified, and
Henrique> the required lintian (and maybe katie) modifications
Henrique> done...
I feel that native packages should not have a debian revision,
but not strongly enough or with reasons to be able to convincingly
argue that feeling be made mandatory in policy.
The rest of this is the rough consensus that devoloped rapidly
on the IRC channel. and the contributers were Adam Heath, Branden
Robinson, John Goerzen, and I.
In a technical sense, "native package" means only that there
IS no Debian version. Additionally, if it could be at all useful
outside a Debian system, I think it shouldn't be packaged without a
Debian revision (in other words, it should not be a native
package). Indeed, there is seldom a need for a true native package.
For large pkgs, I say have the upstream and debian maintainers
be the same, but not make it a debian native pkg. For those cases it
is nice having debian and rest of the world updates be desynced (so you
do ont release a new version if you messed up Debian packaging); and
then one could have a diffs.gz file.
manoj
--
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't
realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
-- Calvin
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: