[Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1100873: Bug#1100873: Conflicting binary packages (Was: Bug#1100873: urjtag_2021.03-3_ppc64el-buildd.changes REJECTED)

[Matthias Geiger]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:37, Matthias Geiger <werdahias at riseup.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:15, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:
>>Am Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:19:36AM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
>>> 8. Thorsten answered[7] only to the list which I do not read regularly
>>
>>Sorry for the confusion. It turns out my procmail is configured to move
>>emails from that list into a folder I don't check frequently. So, it was
>>my fault that Thorsten's message didn't reach me.
>>
>>> 9. Thorsten uploaded liburjtag[8] 2024.03.24-1 on
>>>     Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:06:36 +0100
>>>    with no notification of any involved party.
>>
>>Waiting 14 days was understandable, but I'm not sure if replacing one
>>issue with another-without filing an appropriate bug report-is the best
>>course of action.
>>
>>[...]
>Hi,
>
>> From my perspective, renaming one of the liburjtag binary packages 
>> would
>> be a reasonable approach. While the first-come, first-served rule
>> usually applies, I believe it would make sense for the main urjtag
>> project to provide the appropriately named libraries, whereas a fork
>> should have a distinct name.
>
>agreed.
Just FTR: I meant I agree with Thorsten here of course, src:liburjtag 
was there first (meaning src:urjtag should rename its binary packages).
Unless I'm mistaken policy even explicitely states this.

best,

werdahias