Hi, On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:20:34AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:56:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:11:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:37:30PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: > > > > On 4 November 2016 at 11:47, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > > libga-dev in Debian is built from of src:galib since 2008, > > > > > but due to its higher version number src:ga has hijacked > > > > > this package (likely not intentionally). > > > > Ouch. I have to admit I probaby didn't check when I packaged it, but I'm > > surprised ftp-master didn't catch it, either. > > How could they catch it?
When they process NEW, check whether any of the NEW packages already exist. > Binary packages move between source packages all the time, > and src:ga might just be a new version or fork of src:galib Well, might be, but in that case the description and/or copyright could get reviewed. They review the copyright quite thoroughly for licensing issues anyway... But anyway, we digress. > > > > src:galib seems unmaintained since then, was orphaned in 2012 > > > > (#674871), and removed from testing in July 2016 (due to #812053). > > > > > > > > Would an option here be to just RM src:galib? > > > >... > > > > > > this is not an option, since that would upgrade jessie users of > > > libga-dev to a completely unrelated package. > > > > As libga-dev ships three different libs anyway, one option would be to > > rename it to "ga-libs-dev", how does that sound? The other option would > > be "libglobalarrays-dev". > > > > Thoughts? > > Part of the problem is that both ship a libga That part should be fixed by Conflicts, methinks. But yeah, good point. Michael
