Le 06/03/2012 15:22, Benoît Knecht a écrit : > I think it important for any maintainer to clearly differentiate in > their mind upstream from Debian, even if they happen to be the same > person. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting your software to Debian, > which is at the opposite side of what free software should strive for.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Le 06/03/2012 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Even with a single repository I need to roll out a new orig.tar.gz for > every upstream change or have to commit upstream changes to > debian/patches/* every time I build a source package and send it to > build. The recent change that dpkg now needs "dpkg --commit" is > partially to blame there. You are free to use native packages for your own (intermediate, unreleased) development versions. But the version ultimately uploaded to Debian should not be native. How you manage your git (or whatever) repository is not relevant in chosing whether a package is native or not. Sure, I expect a certain layout for repositories under d-o-m umbrella, but I guess I wouldn't mind as long as it is obvious how to build the package from the git repository (maybe README.source if a plain git-buildpackage doesn't work?). > It says "should" and not "must" and a native package is just so much > simpler to work with at the current state of the package. Current state > is about 50 upstream releases to 3 debian changes only releases. > That might change in the future and then the package can become > non-native. But for now I feel native is the best way. Then maybe libaio-ocaml is not mature enough to enter Debian... Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
