reopen 543990 thanks On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:13:56AM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote: > Probably Chris Lamb is right in that atheist *should not* be a debian native > package. But it is by decision of upstream authors. There is no separate > repository for debian stuff and debian releases *do change* the atheist > package version. Therefore while it is not a "Debian specific package" it > is nonetheless "[...] the case where a piece of software was written > specifically to be turned into a Debian package" (cf. DP 5.6.12). >
This package is not specifically written to Debian for what I can see. > It wouldn't make sense to make a source package where diffs are always empty > (forced by release policy) and the debian revision is always 1. Of course > things may change in the future but the main upstream author does not seem > to be open to discuss the release policy and version scheme (I tried). > You have a thousand of reasons in this thread why this should not be a native package: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.mentors/browse_thread/thread/35a4ed051d214826 Actually the upload that close my bug #543991, was an upload only with packaging changes... while it appeared as a new usptream release (and it is not). And I do not see what ustream has to do here, you just package their version and add -X. > OTOH, I believe these issues should not be discussed in a bug tracking > database. If doubts on the technical competence of the maintainer and/or the > sponsor arise, please do contact them directly rather than filling the bug > database with non-issues. > uh???? I do not really follow what you point here. Yesterday, when filing #543991, I was about to file a bug about this very same issue when I saw Lamby has already fixed it. The BTS is the way we have to track this stuff... Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
