Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > I feel I should point out that my initial mail in this subthread was a > reaction to a one-line statement that 'switching upstreams does not > make a package native.' That I objected to, because of the lack of > context, and the inherent feeling that, to me, seemed to be part of > this message that this package had no business whatsoever of being a > native package.
I didn't read that comment that way. Rather I read that switching upstream developer *by itself* is insufficient reason to make a package native. (I agree with that position.) You don't seem to have argued against that. Rather, you've presented the position that there are particular reasons that are sufficient for a package to be native. That's compatible with a position that switching upstreams is not one of those reasons, so I don't see what you object to. -- \ “I got an answering machine for my phone. Now when someone | `\ calls me up and I'm not home, they get a recording of a busy | _o__) signal.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney
pgpMDypM4v5ZM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
