Ian Jackson writes:
> Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed,
> unrelated package"):
>> I would say reusing binary package names is usually worse than reusing
>> source package names, in that it's a lot more likely to affe
(Apologies if you receive this message twice; I dropped a ball juggling
e-mail identities).
Ian Jackson writes:
> Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed,
> unrelated package"):
>> I would say reusing binary package names is usually worse
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> >
> > > There are utilities that will download all revisions of a particular
> > > package from snapshot.d.o and make them into a comb
On 2019-02-06 21:15:38 + (+), Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> reusing a source package name is IMO almost never (maybe never at
> all) the right idea.
[...]
To take an example, I maintain the weather-util packages in main.
The weather-util binary package provides a /usr/bin/weather
executable b
Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed,
unrelated package"):
> I would say reusing binary package names is usually worse than reusing
> source package names, in that it's a lot more likely to affect users.
> Sometimes it happens anyway, b
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > There are utilities that will download all revisions of a particular
> > package from snapshot.d.o and make them into a combined history.
>
> Would you care to name those you know of? I have been searc
Ian Jackson writes:
> There are utilities that will download all revisions of a particular
> package from snapshot.d.o and make them into a combined history.
Would you care to name those you know of? I have been searching for
something like that but I didn't find anything useful.
Regards,
Cars
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:39 AM Gard Spreemann wrote:
> I understand that 3.3.2 of the policy mandates that I at least bump the
> epoch, but I wanted to ask the list to make sure: is reusing the source
> package name of an unrelated, long-removed package like this OK, or
> should I consider using a
On 2/6/19 4:31 PM, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> Gard Spreemann writes ("Reusing source package name of long-removed,
>> unrelated package"):
>>> I understand that 3.3.2 of the policy mandates that I at least bump the
>>>
Ian Jackson writes:
> Gard Spreemann writes ("Reusing source package name of long-removed,
> unrelated package"):
>> I understand that 3.3.2 of the policy mandates that I at least bump the
>> epoch, but I wanted to ask the list to make sure: is reusing the
Gard Spreemann writes ("Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated
package"):
> I filed an ITP (#920912) regarding a package I'm preparing. The upstream
> name for this package is "phat", which doesn't appear in the archives
> from jessie to th
Hello,
I filed an ITP (#920912) regarding a package I'm preparing. The upstream
name for this package is "phat", which doesn't appear in the archives
from jessie to the present day. After filing the ITP and uploading my
package to mentors, I realized that there was an unrelated "phat" with a
diffe
12 matches
Mail list logo
