Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
>> > removed?
>> Yes.
>
> BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
> upstream author used timestamp base
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
>> > removed?
>> Yes.
>
> BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
> upstream author used timestamp base
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
> to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
> of the package and thus the tarball name.
>
> How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
epoch.
Grüße/Regards,
René
- --
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~r
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:49:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
> > > removed?
> > Yes.
>
> BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Pr
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
> to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
> of the package and thus the tarball name.
>
> How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach
Hi.
Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
Epoch. 1:1.3.3 > 20040120.
Cheers
T.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
> > removed?
> Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
upstream author used timestamp based versioning with last version
2004012
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
epoch.
Grüße/Regards,
René
- --
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~r
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:49:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
> > > removed?
> > Yes.
>
> BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Pr
Hi.
Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
Epoch. 1:1.3.3 > 20040120.
Cheers
T.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
> upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
> be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ..
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
> > removed?
> Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
upstream author used timestamp based versioning with last version
2004012
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
of the package and thus the tarball name.
How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems to be to
keep the currend debian source package nam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
> upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
> be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ..
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
of the package and thus the tarball name.
How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems to be to
keep the currend debian source package nam
David Coe wrote:
> since it will still produce a 'wenglish' binary package, i assume
> upgrades won't be a problem, but what about the old sources? how do i
> get rid of them when i upload the new source package with its new
> name?
File a bug on ftp.debian.org. I don't think they'll be deleted
a
hi all,
i hope you can give me advice (or a how-to)---
I want to rename one of my packages (wenglish) because it will soon
provide more than one binary package (wenglish and wbritish) and will
also provide 'new style' versions of those word lists
(words-english-american, words-english-british)...
David Coe wrote:
> since it will still produce a 'wenglish' binary package, i assume
> upgrades won't be a problem, but what about the old sources? how do i
> get rid of them when i upload the new source package with its new
> name?
File a bug on ftp.debian.org. I don't think they'll be deleted
hi all,
i hope you can give me advice (or a how-to)---
I want to rename one of my packages (wenglish) because it will soon
provide more than one binary package (wenglish and wbritish) and will
also provide 'new style' versions of those word lists
(words-english-american, words-english-british)..
20 matches
Mail list logo
