Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as older than version 1:1.1.13-0.0
In his response to your initial bug report #660814, the one that you took as motive for insulting him, Reinhard sent you a link to our Wiki that explains this very distinction. If you'd have read it, you'd know: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ#There_is_.27Debian_Multimedia_Maintainers.27_and_.27debian-multimedia.org.27._So_what.27s_the_difference.3F My bad - I plead selective perception while reading. I appreciate you providing the few words of context for the explanation, which, though simple in retrospect, and obvious to Reinhard, made no sense at all at the time, for me, starting with a false set of assumptions. In my (though limited) legal understanding the quoted passage restricts the use of the top-level domain debian, e.g. debian.de or debian.co.uk. Nothing prevents you from randomly inserting the word debian into your TLD, e.g. debian-administration.org or debianforum.de. My understanding would be that the courts would consider whether the use of a registered trademark was likely to mislead or to be misinterpreted by the average person. For instance, famous-companySUX.org could reasonably be seen as editorial speech, while famous-companySUPPORT.org would be less clear and, I believe, likely to mislead the average person. I suppose that Debian could authorize the use, by others, of their registered trademark, but I also would expect that casual authorization would also be seen as an abandonment of that trademark. There is a brief discussion of Passing-off, and Reverse passing off, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off Looking at the http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ home page itself, I notice that the Debian swirl logo is prominently displayed on the navigation bar in Iceweasel, and the logo is also used on the page itself, along-side a copyright claim, at the bottom of the page. But then, looking at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLogo, it appears that the Debian swirl logo is not shown as a trademark, with the common law TM symbol, and is also not a registered trademark. Technically, I suppose that anybody could use it for anything, especially since Debian is so casual about who uses the logo, or for what purpose. The Debian Logo page also claims that The Debian Logo is Open Source Brand. As best as I can tell, the phrase Open Source Brand is not a statutized or common law term, and is interpreted by some people to mean anybody can claim to be associated with this brand. Having it both ways - It's all us and It's not us - is kind of awkward. Well, it strikes me as sloppy and inconsistent, but - hey - whatever. You guys do what you like. Furthermore, had you used reportbug to file the bug report (as recommended) it would have probably been sent to the corresponding package maintainer, not us. I don't find reportbug to be very transparent, and there is also this: $ reportbug ** Gdk:ERROR:/build/buildd-gtk+2.0_2.24.10-1-i386-kBWRW9/gtk+2.0-2.24.10/gdk/gdkregion-generic.c:1123:miUnionNonO: assertion failed: (pReg-numRects=pReg-size) Aborted Additionally, the package descriptions should also mention that the package are unofficial. Maybe Christian Marillat reads this and eventually considers it... Yes, that would be nice. But then, that _is_ something about which Debian _could_ do, by itself, where, for instance, dpkg -p could display an explicit Package-Originator: line for a package, distinct from the Maintainer: line. Of course, that goes back to the same branding issue, requiring a recognised and exclusive trademark or tradename, as discussed. But, at least that would be distinct from, and more obvious than, some random Maintainer Email Address, listed by dpkg -p under Maintainer:, which just happens to also be addressed to the very same @debian.org, as you can see is the case with maril...@debian.org. In general, I would suggest that these misunderstandings are all in the nature of obvious to those who already know the answer and counterintuitive to those who do not already know the answer. Presuming a common understanding is very efficient for insiders and not so useful or effective with outsiders. Of course, now, _I've_ been clued-in and will be wary. Maybe there are still some other people in the world who have not yet been. Why can't other people just 'get it'?! Well, handles are generally easy, once you know what they are. Even crows and raccoons catch on to handles. Tradenames and trademarks... James ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as older than version 1:1.1.13-0.0
Am 24.02.2012 06:59, schrieb James: Attempting to divine the underlying distinction between Debian Multimedia and debian-multimedia, I came-up none the wiser. Nor does the package description seem to offer any deeper insight. In his response to your initial bug report #660814, the one that you took as motive for insulting him, Reinhard sent you a link to our Wiki that explains this very distinction. If you'd have read it, you'd know: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ#There_is_.27Debian_Multimedia_Maintainers.27_and_.27debian-multimedia.org.27._So_what.27s_the_difference.3F So, yeah, using the name debian, instead of Debian in the domain name probably threw me off a bit too. In my (though limited) legal understanding the quoted passage restricts the use of the top-level domain debian, e.g. debian.de or debian.co.uk. Nothing prevents you from randomly inserting the word debian into your TLD, e.g. debian-administration.org or debianforum.de. Hmm - but that still leaves me - naively, perhaps - expecting that the epoch 1: should not do that, or rather, that the package managers - synaptic, aptitude, and apt-get - should not do that. No, the epoch is part of Debian's version number policy. It is perfectly alright for the package managers to consider it - it would be a severe bug if they didn't. Of course, whoever it is who actually created 1:1.1.13-0.0 isn't helping things any - still not providing a version 2 package, some guy with a debian.org email address, who, as you say, is not actually the maintainer of the official debian package - not to be confused with the Debian Multimedia Maintainers who _are_ the official maintainers, but who don't have anything to do with those other guys at debian-multimedia. Yes, randomly adding an epoch to version numbers just to give your own package higher priority than the official one isn't really helpful, I agree. But it's not *us* who did this, so there is nothing that *we* can do about it. It's *you* who decided to install this very package from this repository. Now go read Reinhard's reply to your bug report again. Furthermore, had you used reportbug to file the bug report (as recommended) it would have probably been sent to the corresponding package maintainer, not us. I find the package documentation to be still a bit confusing... Agreed, I think d-m.o should explicitely state on their homepage that they provide an *unofficial repository*. Medibuntu has some nice statements on their homepage to make this clear. Additionally, the package descriptions should also mention that the package are unofficial. Maybe Christian Marillat reads this and eventually considers it... - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as older than version 1:1.1.13-0.0
Am 22.02.2012 22:26, schrieb James: Well, Reinhard, with a slap in the face kind of response like that, I'm inclined to denigrate your intelligence and your breeding. But instead, let You didn't just write that to Reinhard and still expect anyone to help you get your screwed-up package dependencies right, he? Reinhard, if you don't know what to do about the problem, then let someone more qualified handle it, instead of just closing the bug. Let me give you a similar advice: You shouldn't fuck up your package dependency chain by installing unofficial packages from third-party repositories if you don't know what you are doing! Get: 3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ wheezy/main vlc i386 1:1.1.13-0.0 [1,392 kB] Does this look like a Debian mirror to you? Is there a problem with the vlc package version numbers? In the old version? In the new version? The 1:1.1.3-0.0 version on d-m.o has an epoch 1: added to its version number that makes it always appear higher than the 2.0.0-1 one from the official Debian repository. That's the solution, no personal insult required. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as older than version 1:1.1.13-0.0
Package: vlc Version: 2.0.0-1 Reinhard Tartler wrote: There has never been a version 1:1.1.13-0.0 in Debian. ... I don't see anything we can do about this problem, thus I'm closing this bug. Well, Reinhard, with a slap in the face kind of response like that, I'm inclined to denigrate your intelligence and your breeding. But instead, let me suggest that you try using dpkg -p vlc to actually inspect the displayed version of the debian vlc package, on the line that begins with Version: $ dpkg -p vlc Package: vlc Priority: optional Section: video Installed-Size: 3439 Maintainer: Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org Bugs: mailto:maril...@debian.org Architecture: i386 Source: vlc-dmo Version: 1:1.1.13-0.0 Replaces: vlc-nox ( 1.1.5-1) Provides: mp3-decoder Depends: ... ... Similarly, dpkg -l vlc shows: ... ii vlc 1:1.1.13-0.0multimedia player and streamer It may be informative to go to http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/vlc and note that the package is listed as Package: vlc (1.1.13-1 and others) noticing the similarity in version numbers. Reinhard, if you don't know what to do about the problem, then let someone more qualified handle it, instead of just closing the bug. In the meantime, synaptic, aptitude, and apt-get, still insist upon upgrading from version 2 to version 1. For instance, aptitude upgrade gives: ... Get: 3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ wheezy/main vlc i386 1:1.1.13-0.0 [1,392 kB] ... Preparing to replace vlc 2.0.0-1 (using .../vlc_1%3a1.1.13-0.0_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement vlc ... ... Is there a problem with the vlc package version numbers? In the old version? In the new version? James ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#660924: package manager sees version 2.0.0-1 as older than version 1:1.1.13-0.0
Hi James, On 12-02-22 at 02:26pm, James wrote: Package: vlc Version: 2.0.0-1 Reinhard Tartler wrote: There has never been a version 1:1.1.13-0.0 in Debian. $ dpkg -p vlc Package: vlc Priority: optional Section: video Installed-Size: 3439 Maintainer: Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org Bugs: mailto:maril...@debian.org Architecture: i386 Source: vlc-dmo Version: 1:1.1.13-0.0 Source is vlc-dmo, which is not Debian. It may be informative to go to http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/vlc and note that the package is listed as Package: vlc (1.1.13-1 and others) noticing the similarity in version numbers. Similar, but not identical. You mix Debian with some unofficial package source. Please clean up your system and come back if the problem persist in a Debian system. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
