On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:11:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > [I'm not calling for a vote yet, we're still in discussion on this, and > I'm still not sure that this situation requires our participation at all.] > > It looks to me like the right thing to do here is: > > [1] Do something so the new tar.gz file has a file name distinct from > the old one. [Guy Maor suggested incrementing the epoch.]
I'm told by folks familiar with katie that using an epoch won't work, because epochs do not appear on .orig.tar.gz filenames. The upstream tarball would thus remain un-renamed from the perspective of the katie database. > Any better ideas? Why is the right thing to do not to consider asking the archive maintainers to grant my request? -- G. Branden Robinson | What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski