Control: affects -1 - liburjtag
Thanks
Hi,
Am Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 08:44:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthias Geiger:
> > > 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.
You are absolutely right about the policy, and I did not intend to
violate it. I appreciate the clarification and apologize if I created
the impression that I wanted to diverge from the rules we all agreed
upon.
I was trying to help as a loosely involved member of the Electronics
team, but I recognize that I made mistakes in the process. Just to
clarify, I am not a user of this package and have no personal stake in
its design-I was simply trying to assist.
To ensure I do not create further issues, I have submitted a MR in
Git[1] that:
1. Resolves the conflict between binary package names.
2. Documents the problem to make users aware of the different library
versions.
I would appreciate a review of the proposed changes and plan to upload
them tomorrow.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/urjtag/-/merge_requests/1
--
https://fam-tille.de
