On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 02:29:26PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Jordi wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 01:03:01PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > well since it is so new, perhaps you should request it be removed > > > (release critical bug on ftp.debian.org) and upload a new package. > > > Realize that the new package will be treated as a completely new > > > package. > > > > Wow, but isn't that a bit drastic? New packages freeze, and all... I > > guess this method would result in a 'nano for Woody'? Any other method? I > > asked on IRC, a developer told me to mail the ftp admins about this. What > > can I do so nano is included on potato? > > Well, IANADD(Y), but if the *only* reason for the name change was the > collision with the uucp 'tip', what the hey, keep calling the thing tip for Actually, this is not the only reason. The upstream author also changed the name. One issue to consider is that if tip is included in potato, then many users will see that name. It is IMHO best to get the name change out of the way before the freeze, or to postpone nano until woody. Richard Braakman said on debian-devel-announce recently that he may make exceptions to the no-new-packages freeze, so I suggest you mail him and point out that nano is just a new name and not a new package. HTH, -Ben -- Ben Darnell bgdarnel@unity.ncsu.edu http://thoughtstream.org
Attachment:
pgpRHumml6cXa.pgp
Description: PGP signature