On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there > is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new > EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can > reinclude thes files again instead of using an epoch to reactivate the > old tarball. What do you think?
Notwithstanding whether you need to do this or not, and I see somebody has already pointed out that you can use the +dfsgN convention for this, it's perhaps worth pointing out that you *can't* use an epoch to replace original tarballs like this. If you have a package foo with versions 1.0-1 and 1:1.0-1, then the .orig.tar.gz will be called foo_1.0.orig.tar.gz in both cases, and so an attempt to have that file have different contents at the two different versions will fail. (dak normally prevents this. There are a few cases where it hasn't noticed, due to the file name having gone through something else in between; I usually notice when we try to sync it into Ubuntu since Launchpad remembers the name-to-content mapping for longer and so ends up being a bit stricter.) -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140520170422.ga3...@riva.ucam.org
