On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> wrote: > * Samuel Bronson <naes...@gmail.com>, 2012-01-21, 13:44: > >>>>> * Package name : gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg >>>> >>>> Does "non-dfsg" really need to be a part of source package name? What if >>>> FSF decides to free the documentation one day? >>> >>> Then this source package will disappear, and its binary will be built >>> from pristine gcc sources. > > Right, that was a silly argument. Thanks for pointing that out. > >> As for the name, a quick look at the changelog will show that I obtained >> it by replacing "4.4" with "4.5" in the name of the source package that mine >> is based on. > > Still, I see no reason to include "dfsg" or "non-dfsg" in any package name > (other than maybe "I want to repeat mistakes of my predecessors" :P).
Yeah, basically. I'd be quite happy to change the source package's name if that would get it uploaded sooner :-). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJYzjmfLuQmfLBp77Bny0-0J_-e=+cqxs4qyccyu3ufpzoq...@mail.gmail.com
