Ralf Treinen pushed to branch pristine-tar at Debian OCaml Maintainers / why3
Commits:
63fb9cce by Ralf Treinen at 2018-12-18T03:10:20Z
pristine-tar data for why3_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz
- - - - -
2 changed files:
- + why3_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz.delta
- + why3_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz.id
Changes:
Ralf Treinen pushed to branch upstream at Debian OCaml Maintainers / why3
Commits:
cbb8dfb9 by Ralf Treinen at 2018-12-18T03:10:05Z
New upstream version 1.1.1
- - - - -
30 changed files:
- CHANGES.md
- Makefile.in
- Version
- bench/bench
- configure
- doc/manual.pdf
- doc/manual.tex
-
Ralf Treinen pushed to branch master at Debian OCaml Maintainers / why3
Commits:
cbb8dfb9 by Ralf Treinen at 2018-12-18T03:10:05Z
New upstream version 1.1.1
- - - - -
5cc4e653 by Ralf Treinen at 2018-12-18T03:10:20Z
Update upstream source from tag upstream/1.1.1
Update to upstream version 1.1.1
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 04:50:38 +0100
Source: why3
Binary: why3 why3-coq libwhy3-ocaml-dev why3-examples why3-doc-html why3-doc-pdf
Architecture: source
Version: 1.1.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer:
why3_1.1.1-1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
why3_1.1.1-1.dsc
why3_1.1.1.orig.tar.gz
why3_1.1.1-1.debian.tar.xz
why3_1.1.1-1_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Hi,
It has been brought to my attention that both packages "whitedune" and
"dune" provide the binary "/usr/bin/dune" (#916468).
The situation falls directly under section 10.1 of the Policy:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-binaries
> Two different packages must not
Resending because
1. mailing @packages.d.o rather than @packages.qa.d.o
2. fixed one of the google urls which I broke while
removing tracking crap
Stéphane Glondu writes ("Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> The "dune" package (of which I am the maintainer) is a popular build
> system for
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
>
> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
> ocaml build
Stéphane Glondu writes ("Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> The "dune" package (of which I am the maintainer) is a popular build
> system for OCaml projects. It is pretty recent, has strong upstream
> support, and more and more projects are switching to it, which is a
> reason to have it in Debian.
Even firefox was renamed twice.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ralf Treinen pushed new tag debian/1.1.1-1 at Debian OCaml Maintainers / why3
--
View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/why3/tree/debian/1.1.1-1
You're receiving this email because of your account on salsa.debian.org.
Ralf Treinen pushed new tag upstream/1.1.1 at Debian OCaml Maintainers / why3
--
View it on GitLab: https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/why3/tree/upstream/1.1.1
You're receiving this email because of your account on salsa.debian.org.
Am 18.12.2018 um 18:48 schrieb Ian Jackson:
> But overall I think this, plus the history of the ocaml program's
> name, does demonstrate that the ocaml program's claim to the overall
> software name `dune', and the command name `dune' is incredibly weak.
>
> I just checked and `odune' seems to be
13 matches
Mail list logo
