On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:37, Matthias Geiger <werdah...@riseup.net> wrote:
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.
Just FTR: I meant I agree with Thorsten here of course, src:liburjtag
was there first (meaning src:urjtag should rename its binary packages).
Unless I'm mistaken policy even explicitely states this.
best,
werdahias
