Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
> Note that there are also many other situations where you already end up
> with different contents under the same version.
Not different source code.
> An obvious example would be if you put both Debian unstable and
> Ubuntu bionic into your sources.list right now:
> It might be the majority of packages where you will then see different
> binary packages with exactly the same version.
As I say, this is neither interesting nor troublesome.
> What happens outside of our archive (e.g. in Ubuntu or .debian.net)
> is nothing we officially provide to our users.
I don't agree, but that's just chopping semantics over "officially
provide". That a colliding source version was not "officially
provided" (whatever that means) does not mean that it is good practice
to generate this kind of confusion.
You'll see the other thread on -devel at the moment where a package
was mistakely left languishing in NEW; one significant causal factor
in this mistake was IMO-inadvisable reuse of the version number.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: