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 anyway. > 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 upload. > 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. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.