Re: Problems with libjgrapht0.8-java (RFS contained)
Hello,
On 05/22/2010 12:00 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Giovanni Mascellani
> <mascellani@poisson.phc.unipi.it> wrote:
>> I made a big mistake with libjgrapht0.8-java:
>
> no the mistake was originally made by Steffen who uploaded version 0.7
> to experimental without changing the source name.
This is problematic when there are updates to the 0.7 or 0.6 packages.
But to my understanding this is not the case. The 0.7 and 0.6 branches
are dead. Right?
There are also other voices saying that the latest version should be
"unversioned" in the package name and only when there is an active maintenance
of the previous version and reverse dependencies, then a separate
source package needs to be crafted for the old version.
If there is someone to blame, then please add Michael Koch to the list :)
> @Steffen: What are your plans with version 0.7? Uploading with a new
> source name? Removing from the archive? Anything else?
I am not aware of any reverse-dependency. It can go. My original understanding was that (presuming an upwards compatibility of the
API) that there should possibly be a 0.8 version of the 0.7-named package.
>> This is necessary, because otherwise the 0.8 version would kick out the 0.6 version,
>
> No, dak is not that buggy anymore but rejecting the broken upload
> makes things easier.
>
>> I prepared a fixed version for libjgrapht0.8-java (to which I also added
>> the +dfsg suffix, as asked by Daniel Leidert), which is otherwise
>> identical to the old one, so it should fairly easy to sponsor. :-)
>
> I have removed the +dfsg suffix again because it breaks the repacking
> script in a horrible way. (I think that this suffix is a complete
> waste of filename characters and makes everything more complicated
> without adding any value.) Feel free to add the suffix again but make
> sure you do not break anything.
>
> I have uploaded your package after adding the get-orig-source target
> to debian/rules.
You two are overqualified to deal with the issue. Whatever you decide
I can live with. Just ensure that there is a versioned jar and if there
is an unversioned binary package name, then this should provide a
symbolic link to the respective versioned jar.
Many thanks and greetings
Steffen
Reply to: