Hi Amul,
may be you missed my last mail - just adding you in CC to avoid this.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 08:25:55AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Amul,
>
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 11:56:01AM -0500, Amul Shah wrote:
> >
> > It’s been a busy few months and I keep telling myself that I’ll do the
> > fis-gtm package next week. We released V6.3-006 at the end of last month,
> > but the corporate security goon squad decided to block SourceForge.net and
> > we’re still awaiting for permission to access it from corporate resources.
>
> If there is another URL where your releases are available for download
> we could point the watch file to this alternative place.
>
> As a personal note: May be its time to leave SourceForge as hosting
> platform. There are more modern and way less advertising noise ones
> these days.
>
> > I tried searching (both in my email and via a mailing list search) for the
> > package name discussion, but couldn’t find it. Could you resend it or
> > remind me what the question is?
>
> The question is: The real binary package is renamed to always reflect
> even the latest minor version change. This always requires the fis-gtm
> package to pass Debian new queue. I was wondering with it might be
> sufficient to say for instance have a package named
>
> Package: fis-gtm-6.3
>
> instead of even adding -004, -006, etc. to the package name. I have no
> idea about the practival implications since I'm not a fis-gtm user but
> it might be worth discussing in your team whether the Debian packages
> are really used in all minor version changes.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
