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

Bug#544981: debian-policy: Discourage native packages that are not tightly specific to Debian

On Fri, Sep 04 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> Given the recent thread in debian-devel[1], I think we should document in
> policy that packages that are not tightly related to Debian shouldn't be
> native.

        This was my understanding, though I se that policy never states
 that explicitly. (However, policy is not exhaustive either, and things
 are added as the need arises). I note that the first hit for Native in
 policy states:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
     Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
     especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should
     always use the "YYYYMMDD" format.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
        Admittedly, this is in a section talking about version numbers
 based on dates.

> The motivations for discouraging native packages not Debian specific are
> that it makes it harder for other parties to make advantage of it. For
> example, they would find new "upstream" releases that fixed Debian
> packaging bugs, or that were NMUs. Also, where should they report bugs?
> In bugs.debian.org?

        Right. And what if the maintinership passes to a non-dd? Policy
 remarks on this in a informational footnote:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
[2]  Although there is nothing stopping an author who is also the Debian
     maintainer from using this changelog for all their changes, it will
     have to be renamed if the Debian and upstream maintainers become
     different people.  In such a case, however, it might be better to
     maintain the package as a non-native package.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> Native packages make sense when the package is pretty much only useful
> for Debian (and Debian derivatives), e.g. dpkg or apt, but not for
> unrelated packages.

        Sounds good to me.

The farther you go, the less you know. Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: