On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:54 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2008-07-24 16:42, Christoph Haas wrote: > > Weird. I wasn't aware of an existing python-babel. And I'm especially > > suprised that the FTP masters didn't see the conflict either. > > That's weird, indeed. Nor did anybody reply to your ITP and > upload mails. The existing python-babel is build from source > package "babel", while yours is binary=source=python-babel. > So there is no conflict in the source names. > > Btw. python-pybabel would be an option for the name, as the > packaged executable is called pybabel, right? Another option is for me to rename my python-babel to python-sidl, as this is mostly the babel/SIDL runtime for python, like libsidl1.2.0-java and libsidl1.2.0(-dev). In contrast babel1.2.0 has the babel SIDL "compiler". My guess is that your package probably has better name recognition as python-babel than mine. I can go ahead and do that, but it will require a trip through the NEW queue -- as would your change. Because my babel wasn't in etch, only testing/unstable users need to be managed via Conflicts/Replaces. What's your version number, so I can set those to not conflict with your package? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part