The Wanderer writes ("Re: Bug#1107137: Distinguish "native source packsge" from
"native version number""):
> On 2025-06-13 at 07:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > +When the ``debian_revision`` is absent, the package's primary
> > +maintenance is within Debian. This is a **native version number**, or
> > +(informally) a "native version" or "native package".
> > +
> > +The ``debian_revision`` indicates that this package is derived by
> > +Debian from an upstream version which is maintained independently,
> > +outside Debian. Successive updates to the package within Debian,
> > +based on the same upstream version, have the same version number
> > +except for the ``debian_revision``. This is called a **non-native
> > +version number**, or (informally) a "native version" or "native
> > +package".
>
> I saw this with the first posted version of the patch, and am surprised
> that no one seems to have pointed it out.
>
> These two paragraphs claim that both a "native version number" and a
> "non-native version number" are informally called a "native version" or
> "native package". I would have expected (and, indeed, believe that I
> recall having seen) the latter to instead be informally called a
> "non-native version" or "non-native package".
>
> Is this just an oversight in the wording, or is there something I've
> missed here?
You're not missing anything. It's a botch. I will fix it, thanks!
Ian.
Note: Wanderer wrote to me privately citing some kind of email
trouble, but gave permission for me to replyh in public.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
