Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>-- But, how do I properly inform the ftp masters that the old
>> 'acovea' source has been replaced by the new 'libacovea' source,
>> even though both produce a binary package called 'acovea' (and
>> should do so)? ITP the new stuff
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 12:01 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
>
> If it were my package, I'd make the judgement call to still call the source
> package acovea, name the source tarball acovea_5.1.1.orig.tar.gz, and build
> the extra binary pack
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> What's puzzling me is this:
>
>-- the original source tarball used to be acovea-4.0.0.tar.gz,
> and I used the name acovea_4.0.0.orig.tar.gz, as is proper.
Check.
>-- upstream has changed the name of the source tarball so
So, I've now gotten myself very puzzled. I'm maintaining a package
called 'acovea' [1] and I'm currently trying to fix an FTBS [2], as
well as bring the package up-to-date with the latest upstream. Those
are the easy parts.
What's puzzling me is this:
-- the original source tarball used to b
4 matches
Mail list logo
