Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"): > Note that there are also many other situations where you already end up > with different contents under the same version.
Not different source code. > An obvious example would be if you put both Debian unstable and > Ubuntu bionic into your sources.list right now: > It might be the majority of packages where you will then see different > binary packages with exactly the same version. As I say, this is neither interesting nor troublesome. > What happens outside of our archive (e.g. in Ubuntu or .debian.net) > is nothing we officially provide to our users. I don't agree, but that's just chopping semantics over "officially provide". That a colliding source version was not "officially provided" (whatever that means) does not mean that it is good practice to generate this kind of confusion. You'll see the other thread on -devel at the moment where a package was mistakely left languishing in NEW; one significant causal factor in this mistake was IMO-inadvisable reuse of the version number. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.