Re: request for Technical Committee ruling on Bug #109436

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:28:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would suggest that what the katie software currently does is
> the right thing in the majority of cases. But once in a while,
> circumstances will arise that require replacement of an .orig.tar.gz
> without a rename. I am asking for official recognition of that fact
> as a general principle, and in this specific case I am asking for the
> scenario at issue in #109436 to be regarded as such an exceptional
> case, because it is Debian policy that is compelling me to change the
> upstream sources.

Ok, you seem to be asserting that the right thing, in this context,
is to distribute the new tarball as if it were the old one.

> > Sure, you can tell a human "look for the file with this number of
> > bytes", but a lot of this stuff is automated.
>
> I don't think the archive maintainers would assert (though it may be
> wise to ask them) in this case that the .orig.tar.gz that needs to be
> replaced, and the replacement, are difficult to distinguish. One is
> already in the pool, the other is in incoming. The new one is also
> referenced by the 4.1.0-3 .dsc file in incoming. Needless to say, I am
> willing to furnish them with whatever additional information they may
> need to fulfill my request.

As you almost imply, the .dsc files for prior versions of the package
will give improper md5sums for the new tarball.

This strikes me as a problem, unless we're going to rely on us ignoring
those md5sums.

Are you willing to re-upload each of the prior debian releases, with fixed
.dsc files, which have the md5sum of the new tarball?  Or, if not all
prior releases, at least those releases which are in the package pool?
[I'm not saying this is the right solution -- I'm asking to you to look
at what you're asking.]

Also: please tell me what's wrong with releasing a 4.1.0.,dfsg version.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul