Comments regarding icestorm_0~20151006git103e6fd-1_i386.changes

[Steffen Möller]

Hi Ruben,

Am 16/11/15 um 19:34 schrieb Ruben Undheim:
>> ... If there is a
>> package providing something and we allow a package of that name in that
>> is something completely different, then Debian would turn inconsistent.
>> Somewhere we apparently lost that email to the ftpmasters that informs
>> them about this name conflict, once we had become aware of it. Thinking
>> back, I possibly should have been more explicit and have suggested to
>> ask the ftpmasters to upfront reject the package to allow its
>> resubmission under a unique name. Hm. Right. I think this is what I
>> would do now :)
> What about renaming it to "fpga-icestorm"?
You are the boss. Mih likez. [ok, I admit, I am more of a dog owner]
> Will we have to "NEW"-wait 2-8 weeks again, or will it be prioritized because
> of just a renaming?
This depends a bit on how excited Thorsten is about you finalising an FPGA
development chain here and if processing of icestorm has started already
in the first place.
Just ping me with your new package and I sponsor.
> Maybe we can upload 'arachne-pnr' just afterwards then? It's just important
> that 'fpga-icestorm' gets accepted into sid first, since arachne-pnr
> build-depends on it.
It should be fine to upload both corrected versions (the first with a
new name,
the second with an updated build dependency) to the new queue.
> Can we keep /usr/share/icestorm to be "upstream compatible"?
Fine with me sponsoring. No conflict, yet, and not ante portas.

Steffen