Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Currently, Debian Policy is silent on when it's appropriate to use a
native package, but there may be a project consensus aganist using
native packages when the software has an existence outside of Debian.
Even if that consensus does not
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org).
> limit package debian-policy
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy'
Limit currently set to
Adam Borowski writes:
> Now that you folks are dealing with the "editor" virtual package, and,
> what interests me here, the alternative for /usr/bin/editor -- could you
> please process this proposal as well, and either accept or close it?
> My point is that, all but one (e3) current
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:26:47AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'll therefore propose that we move the discussion of whether to give
> stronger advice on when to use native packages to a separate bug. Once
> this is merged, there will be some text in Policy defining native
> packages, so it will
Holger Levsen writes:
> I'm not sure if in this regard I would have liked the previous version
> better, as the paragraph about native packages is the only one which I
> would like to see extended to explain that it has been observed that
> packages we thought were native to Debian were not
Simon McVittie writes:
> The other way is to repackage the new upstream release from first
> principles, either because it's a new release from an upstream branch
> that's older than the one in testing/unstable (like src:flatpak in
> Debian 10), or because testing/unstable already has packaging
Hi!
Now that you folks are dealing with the "editor" virtual package, and,
what interests me here, the alternative for /usr/bin/editor -- could you
please process this proposal as well, and either accept or close it?
My point is that, all but one (e3) current alternatives allow positioning
the
On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 at 18:17:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +- ``upstream_version`` components in native packages or
> + ``debian_revision`` components in non-native packages ending in
> + ``~debNuX`` also indicate a stable update, but of a different type.
> + This version convention indicates
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated diff that documents the most well-understood version
> conventions in the Debian archive. More could certainly be added; this is
> just a first start that addresses this specific bug.
thank you for this,
9 matches
Mail list logo
