On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:50:34PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > Why couldn't an upload of cgdb 0.6.6-3 have been made with only the > changes to the docs licensing? this is a source package problem, so it would have to be a 0.6.6+dfsg1-1 with repackaged source. > Would have been easier if you'd not uploaded 0.6.7 and then filed an > unblock request bug at release.debian.org to allow an upload of 0.6.6-3 > to be unblocked, then upload 0.6.7 sometime after 0.6.6-3 had been > unblocked and migrated. yes, I did overlook the other changes in the packaga and assumed it's only the licensing, in which case the upload of 0.6.7 + unblock would have been the goal > Whatever happens, it will be a lot easier for the release team to > decide on this is you file a bug against release.debian.org instead of > this issue getting lost in the traffic from the mailing list. happily, but I am not sure what to do and seek advice. basically I see two options: a) repackage the source (a bit messsy), upload to TPU. b) it was suggested that this could be a wheezy-ignore case. I heard your arguments against it and agree in principle, but one could also argue that this is a little bit of an academic problem given that a free version of the same file is already floating around... thanks robert -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature