On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 16:59:58 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to be sure, that this is not a problem:
>
> There used to be a package "dino" in Debian until jessie. Upstream
> development dried up years ago and dino became extinct.
>
> Recently, a new "dino" appeared on the su
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:02:31PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> FAOD: although "." is legal in package names, I agree that it should
> not be used here. We don't want to embed upstream's domain names in
> our package names because the former have a very short lifespan (!)
> - often much shorter tha
On 10/21/2017 11:45 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Also: Reject NEW packages with
> short names (say, less than six characters) since it's quite likely they
> will collide semantically with something else.
If the name is used upstream, and there's no collision, I really don't
see why we'd do somethi
W. Martin Borgert writes ("Re: New package, name recycling"):
> On 2017-10-20 16:59, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > I would package the new dino under this name, because I don't think
> > there is a conflict.
>
> OK, I will better not reuse the name, but go for
On 2017-10-20 16:59, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> I would package the new dino under this name, because I don't think
> there is a conflict.
OK, I will better not reuse the name, but go for dino-im (= dino
instant messenger), which fits with its domain name dino.im.
Thanks for all your input!
It's still in a supported release (Jessie), two of you count LTS (wheezy).
Reusing that name should probably wait until Jessie is out of LTS support
otherwise there will be conflicts at least with the security tracker.
Am 21.10.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Christoph Biedl:
> Or: Introduce package namespaces, this is a big change. The existing
> flat model one with somewhat hundred thousand (wild guess) entries over
> the past 25 years worked quite well most of the time, although not
> always (git, node). But it's obvio
Adam Borowski wrote...
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:42:04AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:59 AM, W. Martin Borgert
> > wrote:
> > > I would package the new dino under this name, because I don't think
> > > there is a conflict.
> >
> > It is a problem for Ubuntu unles
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:59 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> a package "dino" in Debian
This seems like a fairly generic name.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:42:04AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:59 AM, W. Martin Borgert
> wrote:
> > I would package the new dino under this name, because I don't think
> > there is a conflict.
>
> It is a problem for Ubuntu unless the new version has a newer version
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:59 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> I would package the new dino under this name, because I don't think
> there is a conflict.
It is a problem for Ubuntu unless the new version has a newer version
number than the old package.
Launchpad does not forget about old version n
Hi,
just to be sure, that this is not a problem:
There used to be a package "dino" in Debian until jessie. Upstream
development dried up years ago and dino became extinct.
Recently, a new "dino" appeared on the surface of earth, which is a
completely different program. Like git vs git or node
12 matches
Mail list logo
