On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 02:27:58PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > > > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > > > What's the point/advantage of native packages?
> > > No need to make a separate orig tarball.
>
> the irony here is that native packages also require an upstream tarball,
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 03:13:17PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > > > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > > What's the point/advantage of native packages?
> > No need to make a separate orig tarball.
the irony here is that native packages also require an upstream tarball,
it's just that
> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri writes:
Marco> On Apr 15, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> However if my sources are in git, git is the definitive format
>> for thinking about things, and the dsc I'm producing is only for
>> the convenience of the archive, I don't want to deal with an
>>
Hi,
On 15.04.19 21:23, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Generating an upstream tarball in this case is still useful because this
> way we do not need to upload and store forever the full source archive
> every time that something changes only in the packaging.
That, and upstream tarballs generated with
On Apr 15, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However if my sources are in git, git is the definitive format for
> thinking about things, and the dsc I'm producing is only for the
> convenience of the archive, I don't want to deal with an upstream
> tarball.
Generating an upstream tarball in this case is
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native). The main advantage
>> of 3.0 (native) is that it makes
On 13.04.19 15:07, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:59:19PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
What's the point/advantage of native packages?
No need to make a separate orig tarball.
Can't agree more, there are places where 3.0
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:59:19PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
> > the package is deliberately native [...]
>
> ok, sorry, I ment to say: I see no point whatsoever in native
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
> the package is deliberately native [...]
ok, sorry,
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
the package is deliberately native, whereas a 1.0 native package is
indistinguishable from a package that was intended to
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:42:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Well you could switch to 3.0 (native).
I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
IMO 3.0 (quilt) is sensible and 1.0 too, whether native or not. *If*
native package in todays world are still sensible...
> > But you don't
11 matches
Mail list logo
