Bug#542288: debian-policy: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> Native packages are also used for software that is intended for use
> beyond Debian, but where the upstream maintainer also maintains the
> Debian package. In such cases, the Debian revision and orig tarballs
> represent needless overhead (tweaks to the packaging can use an
> increment to the minor version number, or similar).
> Some people frown upon this practice, but there are more than one of us
> that do it, so probably worth mentioning in policy as a secondary use of
> native packages (possibly a footnote, due to lack of consensus? There
> is certainly not a consensus that it's terrible).
I thought there actually was a consensus that it's terrible. I certainly
think it's not good practice. I would recommend against anyone doing
this, speaking as someone who maintains lots of upstream software that I
also package for Debian, and therefore would rather not document it in
Policy, unless we're going to say not to do it.
Bumping the minor version for things that no one cares about (because they
only affect people consuming it from Debian) is probably between you and
your users, although I think it's poor practice and would be vaguely
irritated by it. But the stronger argument against this approach is NMUs
and change of maintainership. As soon as such a package is NMU'd for
whatever reason, or if you no longer have time to maintain the package for
Debian but are still developing it upstream, the native package status
gets really awkward. At that point, the package is diverging from
upstream, but all the normal mechanisms to handle that divergence with
patch sets and whatnot are no longer available.
I've also repeatedly had the experience as upstream maintainer that I
actually do need to carry a Debian-specific patch for a while, since
Debian needs some quick fix that I don't want to take upstream in the same
form. Which means that I want to use the patch handling mechanisms of
Debian even for myself. And the overhead is basically nonexistent once
you get your tools configured and a workflow set up.
Whenever this came up on debian-mentors, it seemed to me like there was
fairly strong consensus that native status should only be used for
software with no independent existence, and as soon as there's a separate
upstream release and Debian packaging, it's better to just do the setup
work to have a non-native package.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: