Web lists-archives.com

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process




On Monday, March 05, 2018 05:54:59 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> Gert Wollny writes ("Re: Updated  proposal for improving the FTP NEW 
process"):
> > The only option I see for doing this in the BTS would be to ask the ftp
> > team to file the reject messages as a new bug against the source
> > package. I refrained from proposing this because this would mean filing
> > a bug against a package version that is not yet available in Debian.
> > Since the re-upload to NEW would have the same version like the version
> > the bug is filed against, the BTS might get a hiccup. For that reason I
> > originally proposed doing this with the salsa issue tracker.
> 
> Personally I think this Debian practice of reusing version numbers for
> different packages is absurd.  If a package is rejected by ftpmaster
> (or by a sponsor, for that matter) the resubmission should have a new
> version number.

Taken to it's logical end, then every VCS commit should have it's own 
revision.

I think requiring a maintainer to increment the Debian revision of a package 
based on things that happen outside the Debian archive is "not a good 
idea'[1].

Scott K
[1] Imagine your own substantially stronger, but non-insulting phrase here.