On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > In my opinion, a native package is the wrong choice when your only > arguments for it is convenience. > > That's not a strong argument To the contrary, I think that convenience of one or another format is the *only* argument.
What you've listed as counter-argument are cases were it isn't convenient, IMO. And that's why we design packaging tools and format: so that they are convenient to use. I don't think you should feel bad because of that kind of laziness. I see it as an optimization of your work flaw rather than laziness (that's just different wording for the exact same idea in a more positive way). Also, I'm sorry but I don't buy your argument that newbies would see bad native-package examples and reproduce it. Anyone who looked a bit into -mentors@l.d.o (and I know you do) will be able to tell that they do use native packages anyway by simple mistake and lack of knowledge. Repeatedly, we have to explain anyway. Also, I don't understand why you think an NMU becomes awkward if it deals with a native package. Could you explain? On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > There are good arguments *for* a native package, as Joey listed, and > they can work well if upstream == maintainer. But as soon as that > relationship breaks, for whatever reason, care needs to be taken both > upstream and both in packaging to ensure a smooth transition. I've seen > that fail before, though, not with native packages. I fail to understand why this would be a problem for the 2 native package I maintain (eg: debpear and openstack-pkg-tools). The new maintainer would just take over the work (as usual?)... Thomas -- 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/5108e999.8030...@debian.org