On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
> 2015-09-15 23:29 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@mapreri.org>:
> > If you are OK with this I can just remove the hunspell-ca package from
> > lo-dictionaries.
>
> That is fine with me, thanks.
Will do RSN.
> > (then this story will be funny because there are two packages in NEW
> > providing the same binary.... Guess I need to ask somebody to process
> > lo-dictionaries before yours, otherwise ours will overwrite yours and as
> > a result your package will be decrufted :P)
>
> Versions will not match, so I do not expect any overwriting here
> because of full name+version collisions. May be some confusion when
> Packages file is created (not sure if this will trigger an error) or
> the binary package is searched for in places like the PTS, and also
> the fact that lo-dictionaries package (currently 1:5.0.1+dfsg-1) will
> be preferred over our hunspell-ca (3.0). But this will happen
> regardless of the NEW processing ordering. I will need to add a 2:
> epoch to properly take care of this.
We can ask for reject of our package, then re-upload without
hunspell-ca.
@rene: What do you think?
/me removes the binary in the meantime
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature