Hello, On Sat 03 Apr 2021 at 09:25AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To be clear, my understanding of the advocacy of using non-native packages > is primarily about their impact on *Debian* workflows (being able to base > multiple packages on the same tarball, not introducing confusion between > upstream version numbers and Debian version numbers and thus making it > easier for other people in Debian to track the package to an upstream > version, triggering various package checks that ignore native packages but > care about non-native packages such as uscan, etc.). I believe that we need to distinguish between version numbers without Debian revisions and native source package formats. At one point an experienced contributor convinced me that there are cases where it is good to use a version number with a Debian revision but a native source package format. Perhaps we can already write something useful in Policy about packages which don't use Debian revisions, even though there is a lack of consensus about source package formats? Something like: you should always include a Debian revision unless the package has a release process which is tightly coupled with making uploads to the Debian archive (and we would not want to include the converse, that having such a tight coupling implies you shouldn't include a Debian revision). -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
