Hi Till, Quoting Till Kamppeter (2014-05-06 08:24:36) > thank you for updating Debian's Ghostscript to 9.10. > > Unfortunately, 9.10 is not the newest any more. Current version is > 9.14. I am perfectly aware of that. Unfortunately 9,14 introduces a few files that lack proper licensing (upstream lost contact with the author of a patch before getting formalities straightened out, I was explained on irc). > I have packaged 9.14 already for Ubuntu Utopic (14.10). Before you > package it for Debian I want to ask you to not name the original > source tarball ghostscript_9.14~dfsg.orig.tar.bz2 but something like > ghostscript_9.14~dfsg+1.orig.tar.bz2 (upstream version 9.14~dfsg+1) so > that I can sync it to Ubuntu without getting a source tarball > conflict. Thanks for sharing the issue. I will not, however, treat Ubuntu as upstream to Debian: If you choose to second-guess how future Debian will look like, it is on you to straighten out the mess if you guess wrong. I don't do this just to annoy you: It has real consequenses e.g. for the clarity of symbols files to switch naming scheme for the tarballs. Arguably that's a little burden only, but it is a burden on me caused by actions of yours, which I choose to trade with a burden on you. > Please also report upstream Ghostscript bugs for things like no > support for using system's libtrio, to avoid carrying too many distro > patches eternally. Done (a few hours before your post, it seems): http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695211 > Also document well what has to be removed from the original source for > future updates. You mean something else than the DEP5 hints in debian/copyright? Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature