[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recommencement of Allegro packaging (in the Debian Games Team)

Am 31.03.2012 20:29, schrieb Tobias Hansen:
> Since future Allegro transitions could become a bit involved, I would
> like to make sure that we choose the most convenient package names. I
> would call the Allegro 5.0 source package allegro5 in the hope that we
> won't need a new one for Allegro 5.2 etc. The library packages have to
> be called liballegro5.0 after the soname. What about the dev packages?
> liballegro5-dev or liballegro5.0-dev providing liballegro5-dev? For the
> documentation I was thinking allegro5-doc.

I have some questions about the Allegro 4 transition. First, the doc
package of Allegro 4.2 is called liballegro-doc. Because we will have
documentation for both Allegro 4 and 5, I suggest renaming that to
allegro4-doc. I also suggest that we don't create a transitional dummy
package liballegro-doc (as described in
http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package), because we don't know if
users previously having liballegro-doc installed want Allegro 4 or 5
documentation. Or should we have one and make it point to allegro4-doc?

The next question is about Allegro 4.2 having an epoch in the version
number. If we rename liballegro-doc, we will have no package name
overlaps between 4.2 and the new packages, so we could in principle
remove the epoch. I'm not completely sure if we can savely do this
though. All source packages provide a virtual package liballegro-dev.
Also keeping the epoch would prevent us from accidentally introducing a
binary package that has been there before with a lower version. So keep
the epoch for everything, only for 4.4 or not at all?

The transition will go as easy as uploading Allegro 4.4, making the
reverse dependencies use it and then requesting the removal of 4.2 right?

Best regards,

Reply to: