Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o....@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #400112,
regarding Forbid building binary packages with the same name as another source 
package
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
400112: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=400112
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package, and
the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package (in
contrib).

Some tools don't like it at all (e.g sbuild), causing confusing
behaviour, based on the order of entries in Sources.gz, and confusion
for users.

It might be a good idea to forbid name conflicts, since some tools don't
consider that they are totally different namespaces.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to