Re: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jakub Wilk <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Samuel Bronson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 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).
Yeah, basically. I'd be quite happy to change the source package's
name if that would get it uploaded sooner :-).