On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:00:23AM -0400, Dave Steele wrote: >> Do you have a source for that? I was told otherwise before. > > This is what defines a Debian native package. > > Here's why it's stupid for non-native packages: > ... > > In addition, we use pristine (and hash-identical) tarballs with upstream > releases. You can't do this with 3.0 (native), without being upstream. > > I'm all for allowing native packages, but newbies shouldn't be using > them to package software with an upstream. >
I'm not sure we are clear with terms here. The newbie is the upstream, and he has chosen to include the debian directory in his main repository. Should he choose to rev the packaging, upstream is coordinated, by definition. I'm good with the idea that using 'native' with non-native packages is 'stupid'. My question was about resolving the definition of 'native'. Shouldn't it simply mean that upstream is the Debian maintainer, and that the packaging is included? That is the guidance I was given regarding one of my packages. -- "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" - Voltaire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
