#1129373 rust-ruma-common: Please rename source package to rust-ruma and provide crates as binary packages

Package:
src:rust-ruma-common
Source:
src:rust-ruma-common
Submitter:
Matthias Geiger
Date:
2026-03-02 07:59:01 UTC
Severity:
normal
#1129373#5
Date:
2026-03-01 15:03:05 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

with the NEW queue please rename the source package back to rust-ruma,
and provide all ruma* crates as binary packages.

best,

werdahias



- -- System Information:
Debian Release: forky/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 6.18-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: OpenRC (via /run/openrc), PID 1: init
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIsEARYKADMWIQQUWTv/Sl6/b+DpcW7svtu2B7myvgUCaaRVKRUcd2VyZGFoaWFz
QGRlYmlhbi5vcmcACgkQ7L7btge5sr6DyQD9Gb1aAHLKabbc8lvPs2RqoRTth3G2
pkyvestRmi8fvTAA/RMn7STCypNQzegEitNMRjetwvN5I7/KcmxvSHs+PqEI
=Fgbz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
#1129373#10
Date:
2026-03-01 15:54:56 UTC
From:
To:
Quoting Matthias Geiger (2026-03-01 16:03:05)

You seem to conflate two issues into one here.

Which binary packages are you missing now?

 - Jonas
#1129373#15
Date:
2026-03-01 16:04:54 UTC
From:
To:
rather than virual ones.

best,

werdahias
#1129373#20
Date:
2026-03-01 23:21:52 UTC
From:
To:
Quoting Matthias Geiger (2026-03-01 17:04:54)

I consider that a cosmetic issue.  I might do that when I have no other
more pressing tasks.

I fail to understand what is the issue here.  Please elaborate how that
is an issue (even if only a cosmetic one).

Kind regards,

 - Jonas
#1129373#25
Date:
2026-03-02 07:56:51 UTC
From:
To:
Quoting Matthias Geiger (2026-03-01 17:04:54)

Whoops, I am very sorry, and realize that I was being rude there.

I did not mean conflate, I meant lumb or combine.

What I meant to point out was only that it was two issues that could be
clarified and understood separately.

I did not mean to imply that you were attempting to make it look like a
bigger problem by lumping them together.  I also didn't mean to imply
that there is necessarily something wrong in reporting the two issues
as a single bugreport, just wanted to understand better why it was done
like that.

Sorry again for the bad choice of word,

(and please se my earlier follow-up for continued conversation)

 - Jonas