Re: Bug#364609: O: Gnus -- A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> After seven and a half years of maintaining Gnus, I am having
> to give away the package, on what I consider is a matter of
> principle. My upload removing non-DFSG bits was rejected, on the
> grounds that the upload renamed the source package name (the binary
> package name remains Gnus).
> I find myself unable to comply with calling the source package
> Gnus, even though we remove all documentation from the package, and
> pretending it is just a newer upstream version, since that implies to
> people looking at the list of sources that this is perhaps unreleased
> upstream source package -- even though upstream is vehemently opposed
> to this course of action.
I'm with Manoj here - it's not useful to our users for us to fake
a new upstream version. I'm very confused as to why changing the
source package name is such a huge problem. Maybe someone could
Faking an upstream version number which doesn't exist, and which
is not the package that is in Debian, can't be the right solution.
Since changing the source package name seems to be inappropriate,
what would be a useful approach to this problem?
I hope this problem can be solved so that a) our users can rely on
us not to fake version numbers, and b) Manoj can continue to
Debian GNU/Linux Developer