Luk Claes wrote: >> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >>> Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native >>> package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff >>> in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the >>> software has been used historically always as a Debian package, to me >>> that is a native Debian package.
I couldn't find any better and more direct references, but according to [0] and [1] your interpretation is wrong. > I thought this consensus was already a fact and that some maintainers > just disagree and nobody forced them to change yet... Indeed, I think this should be more directly stated at least on dev-ref. Policy only contains an oblique reference[0] to this. > The reasons why it shouldn't be a native package IMHO: > * it's not specific to Debian > * it wastes bandwidth as every upload contains all the sources > * it's confusing for newcomers > * it's error prone for NMUs and security updates Agreed. Additionally it complicates maintainer migration, but your second point is perhaps the most important. Cheers [0] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s3.2.1 [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-update.en.html#s-orig-tar -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
