Re: request for Technical Committee ruling on Bug #109436
> > Also: please tell me what's wrong with releasing a 4.1.0.,dfsg version.
Actually comma is an illegal character -- but the following
alternatives look valid:
4.1.0.
4.1.0+
4.1.0+dfsg
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:52:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Simply put, I don't want to do it.
You do understand that this isn't a technical issue?
Now, if you're concerned about inventing a name which will have
ordering problems when xfree86 releases their next version,
that would be a technical issue.
There may be other technical issues here, as well.
> It's my package, and I like the name and upstream version number as
> they are -- clear and unambiguous.
I'd think it's pretty clear that 4.1.0. is the same version as
4.1.0
> I have not forked the upstream sources, and I have no intention of
> doing. The upstream authors are aware of my changes to their source
> package (we have agreed to disagree on the font licensing issue which
> led to the removal of some Type1 fonts from the source package -- see
> the xfonts-scalable-nonfree source and binary packages). Furthermore,
> I do not see my XFree86 packages as being substantially divergent from
> upstream sources. My changes are documented in the copyright file. If
> you were to ask the XFree86 Project, Inc., if what I am packaging for
> Debian can legimately be called "XFree86", I am confident they would
> say "yes" (they are quite tolerant of non-disruptive [i.e., "don't
> break library ABI's"] customizations that distributors need to make).
> If it would help you to make an informed decision in this matter,
> however, I would urge you to ask them at <bod@XFree86.Org> (that is
> the address for their Board of Directories, so as to faciliate an
> authoritative reply).
Ok, so don't say that you've forked it, because you haven't.
> Furthermore, I do not recognize the authority of the archive
> administrators to tell me what I may or may not name my package, as
> long as it complies with policy (2.3.1) and doesn't collide with the
> name of a package I don't maintain.
We're talking about a new version of the source tarball.
You're saying that the new version isn't very different from
the old one, and that the old one should never have existed.
On the other hand, the old one does exist. The admin folks are
saying: if you don't want the old version, use a new version.
> Similarly, Chapter 4 of the Debian Policy Manual is quite clear
> to what is acceptable in a package version number. My package's
> name and version number are compliant with policy, and beyond that
> I feel package maintainers should be left free to exercise their
> discretion when it comes to stylistic details. See clause 3.1.1 of
> the Constitution ("An individual Developer may make any technical or
> nontechnical decision with regard to their own work").
Um.. but putting your package out on the archives is the work
of the admin folks, isn't it?
> If the archive maintainers want to impose further restrictions,
> I think they should have to submit a proposed amendment to the
> debian-policy list.
We need explicit policy that says "any change to the source
tarball requires a new version number"?
> Alternatively, the Technical Committee can exercise its authority
> to update the Policy Manual accordingly. If the Technical Committee
> decrees that it shall be Debian Policy that "package maintainers shall
> name and version their packages as the archive maintainers dictate",
> then I guess that's how it will be.
I'm not ready to make a proposal that we do such a thing.
I want to understand what technical reasons you have for your proposal.
"I don't want to change the version number", while literally accurate,
doesn't help me understand why you think we should use same file name for
"corrected" and "uncorrected" source tarball. Call me stupid if you want,
but please spell this out.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: