On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:15, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
Am Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:19:36AM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
8. Thorsten answered[7] only to the list which I do not read regularly
Sorry for the confusion. It turns out my procmail is configured to move
emails from that list into a folder I don't check frequently. So, it was
my fault that Thorsten's message didn't reach me.
9. Thorsten uploaded liburjtag[8] 2024.03.24-1 on
Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:06:36 +0100
with no notification of any involved party.
Waiting 14 days was understandable, but I'm not sure if replacing one
issue with another-without filing an appropriate bug report-is the best
course of action.
[...]
Hi,
From my perspective, renaming one of the liburjtag binary packages
would
be a reasonable approach. While the first-come, first-served rule
usually applies, I believe it would make sense for the main urjtag
project to provide the appropriately named libraries, whereas a fork
should have a distinct name.
agreed.
It is causing an issue now due to the wrong takeover of the binary
packages. I happenend to come across this by chance when doing a team
upload of urjtag to fix an RC bug.
Filing this as its own issue is definitly warranted. Not sure what the
best course of action here is tbh.
Regardless, I'm busy until 1st of April and hope this will be sorted
out.
best,
werdahias
