Bug#985557: RM: gnucobol -- ROM; wrong version of compiler, breaks compatibility
On 21 Mar 2021 20:50, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:31:45AM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > On 21 Mar 2021 14:20, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:06:01AM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > > > On 20 Mar 2021 00:09, Ivo De Decker wrote: > > > > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:25:01PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > > > > > Please remove the version of gnucobol in unstable. Per upstream, > > > > > > this version in not backwards compatible with any prior version. > > > > > > I made a mistake in packaging it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > An upload of the proper version (3.1.2) is being prepared. > > > > > > > > > > Removing a package from unstable and then uploading the same package > > > > > with a > > > > > lower version isn't possible. If you want to go back to version 3.x, > > > > > you'll > > > > > need to do an upload with a version higher than the current one. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Ivo > > > > > > > > Understood. My only option may be to increase the epoch. > > > > > > An epoch is not the only option, and it is the wrong option: > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#epochs-should-be-used-sparingly > > > > Why are you assuming I have not read the documentation? ... > > You wrote "My only option", which implied to me that you were not aware > of the other option that is actually the recommended option. > > > Or that I do not know that that particular bit of Policy > > does not exist? That is precisely why the word "may" > > was used. > > I'm really getting tired of these sorts of assumptions > that everyone is a native English speaker. > > I am not. > > My understanding of "only" is that it means "there is not any other". > > Fancy interactions between the words "only" and "may" are beyond my > knowledge of the English language. Yet another assumption. I taught English as a second language. I speak at least two others. I am very aware of the strangeness of the English language and write intentionally simple English. I deal with this on a daily basis with colleagues from multiple countries. > > I'm really getting tired of these sorts of assumptions. > > It would be much more useful to assume good intent on > > the part of others. > > This is an impossible proposition when it comes across as if the other > person is about to make an irreversible mistake, like adding an epoch > without first getting consensus on debian-devel. No, it is not impossible. You see it as impossible. I do not. And, this highlights the problem: you are assuming I do not know about the need for consensus. You have no idea what I'm planning to do next, and you have no idea what I do and do not know. Yet, you assume I am going to make a mistake. All I'm asking is that you find a way to do as many others do -- assume that people know what they are doing until proven otherwise. > cu > Adrian > -- Ciao, al -- Al Stone Debian Developer E-mail: a...@ahs3.nethttp://www.debian.org a...@debian.org --
Bug#985557: RM: gnucobol -- ROM; wrong version of compiler, breaks compatibility
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:31:45AM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > On 21 Mar 2021 14:20, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:06:01AM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > > On 20 Mar 2021 00:09, Ivo De Decker wrote: > > > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:25:01PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > > > > Please remove the version of gnucobol in unstable. Per upstream, > > > > > this version in not backwards compatible with any prior version. > > > > > I made a mistake in packaging it at all. > > > > > > > > > > An upload of the proper version (3.1.2) is being prepared. > > > > > > > > Removing a package from unstable and then uploading the same package > > > > with a > > > > lower version isn't possible. If you want to go back to version 3.x, > > > > you'll > > > > need to do an upload with a version higher than the current one. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Ivo > > > > > > Understood. My only option may be to increase the epoch. > > > > An epoch is not the only option, and it is the wrong option: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#epochs-should-be-used-sparingly > > Why are you assuming I have not read the documentation? ... You wrote "My only option", which implied to me that you were not aware of the other option that is actually the recommended option. > Or that I do not know that that particular bit of Policy > does not exist? That is precisely why the word "may" > was used. I'm really getting tired of these sorts of assumptions that everyone is a native English speaker. I am not. My understanding of "only" is that it means "there is not any other". Fancy interactions between the words "only" and "may" are beyond my knowledge of the English language. > I'm really getting tired of these sorts of assumptions. > It would be much more useful to assume good intent on > the part of others. This is an impossible proposition when it comes across as if the other person is about to make an irreversible mistake, like adding an epoch without first getting consensus on debian-devel. cu Adrian
Bug#985557: RM: gnucobol -- ROM; wrong version of compiler, breaks compatibility
On 20 Mar 2021 00:09, Ivo De Decker wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:25:01PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > Please remove the version of gnucobol in unstable. Per upstream, > > this version in not backwards compatible with any prior version. > > I made a mistake in packaging it at all. > > > > An upload of the proper version (3.1.2) is being prepared. > > Removing a package from unstable and then uploading the same package with a > lower version isn't possible. If you want to go back to version 3.x, you'll > need to do an upload with a version higher than the current one. > > Cheers, > > Ivo Understood. My only option may be to increase the epoch. -- Ciao, al -- Al Stone Debian Developer E-mail: a...@ahs3.nethttp://www.debian.org a...@debian.org --
Bug#985557: RM: gnucobol -- ROM; wrong version of compiler, breaks compatibility
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:25:01PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > Please remove the version of gnucobol in unstable. Per upstream, > this version in not backwards compatible with any prior version. > I made a mistake in packaging it at all. > > An upload of the proper version (3.1.2) is being prepared. Removing a package from unstable and then uploading the same package with a lower version isn't possible. If you want to go back to version 3.x, you'll need to do an upload with a version higher than the current one. Cheers, Ivo
Bug#985557: RM: gnucobol -- ROM; wrong version of compiler, breaks compatibility
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Please remove the version of gnucobol in unstable. Per upstream, this version in not backwards compatible with any prior version. I made a mistake in packaging it at all. An upload of the proper version (3.1.2) is being prepared.
