Re: RFS: vidalia
On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> George Danchev wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> >> Finally, this is the first ever Debian package for vidalia so it should
> >> have a Debian version of -1.
> >
> > I consider such requirement quite suboptimal. 1) you kill history 2) even
> > not being officially published,
>
> Please go and read what I said. This package has *never* been in Debian so
> there is *no* history. Uploading it to mentors doesn't really count since
> it won't stay there after it's been uploaded to Debian.
the timeframe residing on mentors is not guaranteed to be short, plus there
are packages which have been residing on a user's public servers for quite
some time before being put on mentors, so having versioning preserved would
help a lot of users.
> > Even more to consider:
> > http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#increment
> > and *reasoning* behind.
>
> Yes, I know about what Neil has said and while I agree with most of his
> sponsoring suggestions I disagree with this one. It's more important (in my
> opinion) that the package history in the archive doesn't have unexplained
> gaps.
It's more important (IMO) having packaging information logged for these who
read it, i.e. why certain decisions has been made in the past or over the
time. Ok fine with me, just my experience doesn't much yours.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: