>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> I certainly agree with this. I don't think anyone is saying
Ian> that using (say) a merging git workflow with a native source
Ian> package format should be universal, or even the default.
Correct.
My take away from this discussion though is that using a native package
format even when there are upstream sources is an appropriate tool for
maintainers to use sometimes.
I think that is a significant change over our feelings years ago.
Back in the day I think there was approach a project consensus that
using native format packages with upstreams that were native to Debian
was basically always wrong.
My reading of this discussion is that it's a tool that maintainers
should have and it's sometimes reasonable to use that tool. People have
done a great job of bringing up athings to think about for maintainers
considering using that tool. I've certainly found the discussion
educational. It's changed my thinking about when I would choose to use
native format packages in the future.
So, my high level summary is that it's an option maintainers have, but
there are many things maintainers should consider when electing to use
that option.
I think it would be great to capture the items people brought up here in
a wiki page for people to look at when they consider using native format
packages.
I'd be really greatful if someone else made a first cut at turning this
discussion into such a page, but if it doesn't happen I'll work to find
time.
Thanks for all your great things to consider!
--Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature