On (14/08/07 17:44), Joey Hess wrote: > Many native packages are not Debian-specifc software, but instead > debian-originated software (examples: dpkg, apt). Other unrelated distros > might choose to use native Debian software. Just because it's > debian-originated software, doesn't mean that the project as a whole is its > "upsteam" maintainer though. Its Debian maintainer is the only upstream > maintainer. So shouldn't he be the only one who releases new tarballs of the > software?
> > We could do away with the concept of NMUs of native software, and do away > with this uncertanty, ambiguity, bugginess, etc. Simply say that when a > NMU of a native package is done, the package stops being native in > Debian (until the next maintainer upload, presumably). So the NMU adds > "-0.1" to the version number, like any NMU. The .orig.tar.gz from the > maintainer's last release is kept in the archive, with a .diff.gz added > that conveniently contains only the NMU's changes. Since it's not a native > package, it will be correct for the changelog to be installed as > changelog.Debian.gz, and correct for the version number to contain a dash. This seems to make sense to me. However you say The .orig.tar.gz from the maintainer's last release is kept in the archive but for a native package there is no .orig.tar.gz, there is a .tar.gz. I guess there are some tools that would be confused by this, in that they wont know to unpack a source package that contains only a .diff.gz against a .tar.gz of the appropriate version number. Also, I guess you are opening up the possibility of creating a source package containing both a .tar.gz and .diff.gz, which will also confuse some tools I expect. Thanks, James -- James Westby -- GPG Key ID: B577FE13 -- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
