Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated  proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
> A version is published to our users when it gets accepted into
> the archive.
> Readable information in apt-listchanges is IMHO more important
> than theoretical discussions around whether something submitted
> to mentors.d.n is public.

apt-listchanges will present the right section of the changelog

> A changelog is also permanent, and people might read it decades later 
> for understanding packaging decisions - already today it is not uncommon 
> to check 20 year old changelog entries for that.
> For either of the above a weird version history or 10 Debian revisions 
> until a new maintainer got her first packaging attempt correct are
> not optimal.

I disagree completely.

Furthermore, of it really does get to 10 versions, containing
absurdities, then the most-recent-version's changelog stanza can
contain a summary of the differences from the previously-accepted

> Or a more funny issue:
> How would you notice a version reuse in all cases?
> A package uploaded to mentors.d.n. adopting a package with
> "New maintainer" as only change is usually a reject. If some DD does
> the same years later, there is no record anywhere that this version
> was already taken by some random person from the internet who once
> upon a time uploaded it to mentors.d.n.

That a bad practice cannot always be detected by tooling does not make
it a good practice.


Ian Jackson <>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address or, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply via email to