[Pkg-mol-devel] MOL uploads

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:36:36PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:32:39PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > My upload motto for this upload: release early, release often or we will
> > never make it into etch.
> 
> It is one way of seeing it. :) I am more on the other side: release
> it when it is ready.
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:05:21PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> > > There are several things which bother me about the uploads...
> > > 
> > > First, you renamed the source package mol to mol-dfsg and now it is
> > > rotting in the NEW queue... I fail to understand why you did that. What
> > > about rather doing an upload with the dfsg part in the version?
> > 
> > This was partly unintended. I was under the impression that the new
> > packages will not need NEW processing. See
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00456.html. I was
> > obviously wrong. Nevertheless I think it is the right decision to change
> > the source package name. I think we already discussed this previously.
> > 
> > I hope NEW processing will not take too long. Most packages currently in
> > NEW are only some days old.
> 
> Well, we can rename it back to mol with the dfsg part in the version
> and upload it again, thus making obsolete the mol-dfsg package rotting
> in the NEW queue.

I'm currently preparing such an upload. I found in ftpmaster's REJECT
FAQ, that changing the source package name for "dfsg repackaged" sources
is not recommended, because it confuses source based tools like the PTS.
I did not think about that and decided to rename the package because I
don't like the fact that if we want to remove the dfsg part later
(because we succeed in building everything from source) we could run into
the problem that 0.9.71~pre9.dfsg-2 > 0.9.71~pre9-3. In this case we are
forced to either keep the dfsg until the next upstream release or use an
epoch.

> > > Finally, mol-drivers-linux has not been uploaded.
> > 
> > There were no code changes to this package. It is built from a completely
> > different source. In fact the current version numbering is somewhat
> > missleading because the mol-drivers-linux releases are not coupled to
> > the other mol releases.
> > 
> > You bumped the upstream version number in the changelog, but I could not
> > find a corresponding upstream tarball.
> > 
> > As the mol-drivers versions are not really coupeld to the mol version
> > (there is no versioned dependency). I don't think that an immediate
> > upload is necessary. If a new package is ready I would be happy to
> > upload it.
> 
> Hmm... Funny, I did not recall that. I will look at it...

I would be quite happy if you could take care of this.

gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~