Re: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
* Samuel Bronson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 2012-01-21, 13:44:
Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built
from pristine gcc sources.
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What
if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
* Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Right, that was a silly argument. Thanks for pointing that out.
As for the name, a quick look at the changelog will show that I
obtained it by replacing "4.4" with "4.5" in the name of the source
package that mine is based on.
Still, I see no reason to include "dfsg" or "non-dfsg" in any package
name (other than maybe "I want to repeat mistakes of my predecessors"