[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg

* Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com>, 2012-01-21, 13:44:
* Package name    : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What if FSF decides to free the documentation one day?
Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built from pristine gcc sources.

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" :P).

Jakub Wilk

Reply to: