Re: RFC: discover 1 -> 2 transition plan for Debian
[Petter Reinholdtsen]n
> These are the package names including changes, if I got it right:
I got a minor issue wrong.
> source discover2-data -> discover-data (changed, new name exited)
> binary discover-data (new source)
> binary discover-data-udeb discover-data-udeb (unchanged)
discover-data-udeb should be discover2-data-udeb, of course.
The renaming was discussed on #debian-boot today, and Bdale Garbee
didn't like the inconsistent naming of udebs. If Joey Hess is ok with
renaming the discover 1 udebs, we can make consistent naming of the
udebs. We will then end up with this name list:
type old name new name delta
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
source discover -> discover1 (NEW)
binary discover -> discover1 (NEW)
binary libdiscover1 libdiscover1 (unchanged)
binary libdiscover-dev -> libdiscover1-dev (NEW)
binary libdiscover1-pic libdiscover1-pic (unchanged)
binary discover-udeb -> discover1-udeb (NEW)
source discover-data -> discover1-data (NEW)
binary discover-data -> discover1-data (NEW)
binary dicsover-data-udeb discover1-data-udeb (NEW)
source discover2 -> discover (changed, new name existed)
binary discover (new source)
binary libdiscover2 (NEW)
binary libdiscover-dev (new source)
binary discover2-udeb discover-udeb (changed, new name existed)
source discover2-data -> discover-data (changed, new name existed)
binary discover-data (new source)
binary discover2-data-udeb -> discover-data-udeb (changed, new name existed)
So, Joey, should we rename the udebs and update the build scripts, to
avoid having inconsistent naming between the debs and the udebs?
Reply to: