Your message dated Sun, 13 May 2007 10:58:35 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line I will not change the source package name
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: proftpd-dfsg
Version: 1.3.0-14
Severity: wishlist
Is it really necessary to rename the source package when removing RFCs?
Other packages only add dfsg to the upstream version number, which has
the advantage of not breaking source package based monitoring
mechanisms.
Greetings
Marc
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18.3-zgsrv
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: proftpd-dfsg
Version: 1.3.0-1
I'm going to include a few contributed modules in future releases, so
I think it's anyway appropriate having a debian specific source name
for a custom tarball. Also, etch now contains proftpd-dfsg, so changing
is anyway not appropriate.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--- End Message ---
