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 affect us
(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
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
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, but IM
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
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,
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 co
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 reusin
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 the pres
ated "phat" with a
different upstream present in the archives from 2005 to 2014 [1]. It was
removed from the archives because it was abandoned by upstream
(#751276).
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
