Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated  proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
> Note that there are also many other situations where you already end up 
> with different contents under the same version.

Not different source code.

> An obvious example would be if you put both Debian unstable and
> Ubuntu bionic into your sources.list right now:
> It might be the majority of packages where you will then see different
> binary packages with exactly the same version.

As I say, this is neither interesting nor troublesome.

> What happens outside of our archive (e.g. in Ubuntu or
> is nothing we officially provide to our users.

I don't agree, but that's just chopping semantics over "officially
provide".  That a colliding source version was not "officially
provided" (whatever that means) does not mean that it is good practice
to generate this kind of confusion.

You'll see the other thread on -devel at the moment where a package
was mistakely left languishing in NEW; one significant causal factor
in this mistake was IMO-inadvisable reuse of the version number.


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