Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
>> David Bremner wrote
>>
>> I (so-far) had the idea that "dpkg-dev", and "debian" could be
>> upstream packages in e.g. melpa-stable. OTOH, "debian" is annoyingly
>> generic, so that might have to change.
>
> If they are native packages, they should not be published to MELPA.
>
> I think they should probably be native packages.
Perhaps. There is this:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/emacs-goodies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063750
If other (non-downstream) distros are going to have them, it's maybe
better to have a real upstream to centralize bug reporting.
In any case, they need an "elpa name" to e.g. go in the define-package
form and the binary package name.
What are the advantages of being native packages? I don't propose to
have seperate upstream repos, only branches.
d
