Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-03-01 Thread Panu Kalliokoski
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:57:07PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I would like to ask whether there really is such a guideline, and if so, which are the technical / political reasons that lead to it. a) If there is a bug in the packaging, it can be fixed without uploading a new upstream source

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-03-01 Thread Federico Di Gregorio
Il giorno mer, 01/03/2006 alle 09.54 +0200, Panu Kalliokoski ha scritto: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:57:07PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I would like to ask whether there really is such a guideline, and if so, which are the technical / political reasons that lead to it. a) If there is a

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-03-01 Thread Peter Samuelson
[liw] a) If there is a bug in the packaging, it can be fixed without uploading a new upstream source tarball. Assuming upstream version is 1.2, the first Debian version would be 1.2-1, and the fixed one would be 1.2-2. The .orig.tar.gz file would be the same for 1.2-1 and 1.2-2.

Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Panu Kalliokoski
Hello, I'm a long-time debian user that aspires to be a DD someday. I recently posted many RFS's on debian-mentors, some of which were software that I'm both the upstream author and packager of. These packages are native Debian packages, i.e. their source distribution is only one .tar.gz. It

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Lars Wirzenius
ti, 2006-02-28 kello 19:39 +0200, Panu Kalliokoski kirjoitti: I would like to ask whether there really is such a guideline, and if so, which are the technical / political reasons that lead to it. There is a somewhat common feeling among Debian developers that Debian packaging should be separate

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Panu Kalliokoski [EMAIL PROTECTED] It was pointed to me that packages should be preferably non-native, even if no source release without the debian/ subdir has ever existed. I would like to ask whether there really is such a guideline, and if so, which are the technical / political

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Hendrik Sattler
Am Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 21:26 schrieb Henning Makholm: Further, providing an .orig.tar.gz without the debian/ directory helps prevent confusion for users on non-Debian systems. So the same reason for not including a .spec file (for creating RPM packages). On the other side, some user may

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Christian Perrier
I would like to ask whether there really is such a guideline, and if so, which are the technical / political reasons that lead to it. I have Wearing my i18n hat, I can add one reason, certainly not THE reason but yet another argument to avoid native packages except for Debian-specific stuff

Re: Is there some guideline saying that native packages should be avoided?

2006-02-28 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 21:26 schrieb Henning Makholm: Further, providing an .orig.tar.gz without the debian/ directory helps prevent confusion for users on non-Debian systems. On the other side, some user may find it very useful. Then the