On Wed, Sep 23 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-...@web.de> writes:
>
>> If upstream == maintainer then why would there ever be an upstream
>> release without a debian release?
>
> It's rare for there to be an upstream release without a Debian release,
> although it can happen during freezes or with frequent dev releases. It's
> very, very common for there to be a Debian release without an upstream
> release, which is more where the problem is. Going through all the normal
> upstream release process when there was just a minor change to the
> packaging files is really a waste of time, and then what happens is that
> there's a temptation to not fix packaging problems until one gets around
> to making another upstream release.
>
> I went through all this with my own packages for which I'm upstream and
> found that keeping the packaging separate from the upstream distribution
> was way more convenient and useful for me.
And that, I think, may serve as a guiding criteria for whether
one should make a package native or not. With my native packages
(kernel-package, ucf, and devotee), I do not _have_ an upstrem process,
nor an upstream "distribution" or tarball; and thus there is no
difference in process for a packaging change or a feature addition --
which makes it clear to me that these are native packages.
So if the "upstream release" has a life of its own, distinct
from a Debian package upload, you probably do not want native packaging
even if you, as a DD, are upstream.
manoj
--
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
