2008/11/28 Christophe Monniez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:christophe.monniez@fccu.be" target="_blank">christophe.monniez@fccu.be</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Le vendredi 28 novembre 2008 à 09:10 +0100, Daniel Baumann a écrit :<br>
<div>> about rifituti2..<br>
><br>
> either both the source and binary package will be named rifituti2, then<br>
> we can upload this alongside to rifituti, and once it passed NEW, remove<br>
> rifituti. advantage: it's fair against previous upstream to not claim<br>
> his name and distinguish rifituti and rifituti2, disadvantage it has to<br>
> pass NEW and that will take a couple of weeks :/<br>
><br>
> or we just name both source and binary package rifituti by 'hijacking'<br>
> that. i personally would not prefere this.<br>
<br>
</div>s/rifituti/rifiuti/g<br>
<br>
I personally prefer the first solution too.<br>
I know some projects that use rifiuti (like ptk for exemple) that could<br>
be, one day, included in Debian. As those kind packages would depends on<br>
rifiuti, it's better to keep 1 and 2 alongside until all interesting<br>
projects have moved to rifiuti2.<br>
<div></div></blockquote><div><br>Hi,<br><br>I've renamed the filename of the binary to rifiuti2, so there is no more conflict between the two packages. Daniel, could you help me on checking my package at <a href="http://ypwong.org/debian/rifiuti2/">http://ypwong.org/debian/rifiuti2/</a> please?<br>
<br>Anthony<br><br>p.s. I'm subscribed to this mailing list.<br></div></div><br>