>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
Russ> Switching terminology to completely leave behind the terms
Russ> with ambiguous meanings isn't a bad idea, but if so we really
Russ> need a term that captures "is a packaging of an upstream
Russ> software package with a separate existence" versus "exists
Russ> solely as a Debian package." "with-revision" or
Russ> "without-revision" doesn't feel to me like it does this.
Russ> Native and non-native do, which is why I was sticking with
Russ> them, but maybe we can come up with some other equally-good
Russ> terminology.
Why do we need that distinction?
Looking at current policy, 5.6.12 talks about having a debian revision
or not having a debian revision.
Other parts of policy talk about what parts of the source package there
are.
Why do we need more than these two distinctions.
I think that current policy has mostly left behind the work native
(although their are a few uses still).
My suspicion is that avoiding native allowed us to get a broader
consensus in the policy process.
Why isn't what we have good enough?
