Re: Uploaded debian-keyring 1998.07.04 (source all) to master
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 5 Jul 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
> > On 4 Jul 1998, James Troup wrote:
> >
> > > Version: 1998.07.04
> >
> > I thought the standards for dates was finally 1998-07-04.
>
> [...]
> That would violate policy.
Ok.
Related issue: does "pine-docs_1998-02-15-2" violate policy?
It is true that this package (pine-docs) does not exist outside Debian, so
it would be a Debian-native package. However, the contents of the package
was not written by me, but collected from material found in the UW FTP
site, so it is not 100% clear that it is a "Debian-native" package either.
In either case, the addition of a Debian revision number and splitting
the package into an .orig.tar.gz source and a .diff.gz allowed me
recently to get rid of an unneeded dependency without having to reupload
the .orig source again, so in this case a Debian revision number has been
useful and convenient.
What is exactly the criteria that makes a package to be "Debian-native"?
Just the version number? The contents? It is always clear from the
contents that a package should be a "Debian-native" package?
[ Please note that I'm not saying that you should use this scheme for the
debian-keyring, just that I would not consider it to be a bug ].
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNaEIpyqK7IlOjMLFAQFDeAQAmArwK0m+YryhjagCG1CKdA2R0apAl7o5
2yWzRreYc79BOcrwsg3NgSt3+KrRT+LqK1t6w5MNFQILX7Q3M+NuctnIeUcEF0uu
oCQL8q6A5PyBzqGrpDq0t0HsokXddvZcH9gWwyq/3+6lQ1uh1GQdSK42ijboWgnN
sMShtT0BMgA=
=RLuY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: