Re: request for Technical Committee ruling on Bug #109436
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
Raul> It looks to me like the right thing to do here is:
Raul> [1] Do something so the new tar.gz file has a file name distinct from
Raul> the old one. [Guy Maor suggested incrementing the epoch.]
This should work(well, not the epoch, but a rename of the
source) , but I am not convinced this is the correct thing to do.
Raul> [2] File a bug report against ftp.debian.org to get the old
Raul> tar.gz file pulled.
In this case, I would prefer this (because of the DFSG
violations). In general, though, this could cause problems with
licence violations until the other archs caught up (we would be
distributing binaries without the corresponding source)
Raul> [3] File a bug report against policy so steps [1] and [2] are clearly
Raul> documented.
Raul> Currently policy on Epoch says:
Raul> It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of
Raul> older versions of a package, and also a package's previous
Raul> version numbering schemes, to be left behind.
Raul> This is a bit too narrow as it doesn't talk about the need for
Raul> distinct instances of the same version of the upstream tarball.
The epoch is not the solution here, so this is moot. epochs
are for version number screwups, and do not affect the original
sources.
manoj
--
"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." Peter da
Silva (at the National Academy of Sciences, 1965, in a particularly
vivid fantasy)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: