>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
>> Citation requested. I looked for this today and couldn't find
>> it.
Russ> Policy lacks a section that clearly defines native and
Russ> non-native packages, which is a long-standing bug in Policy.
Russ> Currently, that information is in Policy 5.6.12, which is an
Russ> inobvious place for it, and worse, is hidden in the definition
Russ> of the debian_revision component. However, the intent is to
Russ> define native vs. non-native by the version number format
Russ> used:
OK, we found the same section of policy.
Russ> This part of the version number specifies the version of
Russ> the Debian package based on the upstream version. It may
Russ> contain only alphanumerics and the characters + . ~ (plus,
Russ> full stop, tilde) and is compared in the same way as the
Russ> upstream_version is.
Russ> It is optional; if it isn't present then the
Russ> upstream_version may not contain a hyphen. This format
Russ> represents the case where a piece of software was written
Russ> specifically to be a Debian package, where the Debian package
Russ> source must always be identical to the pristine source and
Russ> therefore no revision indication is required.
OK.
I agree that policy 6.5.12 clearly states that if the debian revision is
absent:
* The software is written for Debian
* the source and upstream source must be the same
* No revision is required (i think this last is analysis not normative)
However, I cannot read that text to imply anything about what happens if
the Debian revision is present:
* Policy seems silent on whether the software MAY?SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT be
written explicitly for Debian (I consider this a feature)
* Policy appears silent about whether the source and upstream source are
the same/need be the same
* Policy seems very silent about whether technical mechanisms that would
make it difficult for the upstream source and source to differ are
appropriate with a debian revision present.
Clearly, if your source and upstream source differ, using technical
mechanisms incompatible with that is nonsensical.
I claim that 6.5.12 at least is silent on the treatment of packages that
have a Debian revision.
I agree that 6.5.12 strongly suggests that
3.0(QUILT) packages should have a debian revision. Any thought at all
about 3.0(QUILT) raises that to a requirement rather than a strong
suggestion.
However that seems unrelated to this bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/00000144044d1318-5b90edcf-54df-4368-8a94-4bf008381306-000...@email.amazonses.com
