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

gbiff vs. gbiff2


While adopting gbiff2, I encountered the following problem:

The gbiff package in Debian is now FTBFS due to our GNOME2 transition
not providing libpanel-applet-dev and libpanel-applet0 anymore. Upstream
forked the development separating the gbiff and gbiff2 packages. So, I
"renamed" the gbiff package to gbiff2 (upload/ftpmaster approval
pending) for the following reasons:

1) Clear reference to the upstream gbiff2 instead of gbiff package

2) Keeping the original (orig.tar.gz) package without repackaging the
upstream sources (1st level directory name) of this little app

3) In the package, there's everywhere the reference to gbiff2

With one of my sponsors, I had a discussion about the details of the
transition. While renaming from gbiff to gbiff2 would be OK (IMHO), the
question is if we should:

A) Replaces: and Conflicts: gbiff (in the gbiff2 package)


B) provide a successor gbiff package as transitional package just
depending on gbiff2. This metapackage would have to be removed in
sarge+1 or sarge+2, IMHO.

While A) is the recommended way of renaming packages, this doesn't
ensure gbiff2 to be installed on woody machines upgrading to sarge, B)
would leave a (small and architecture independent) metapackage.

So, what would be the best way, in your opinion? In my opinion, B) is
the smoothest transition.

Thanks in advance!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: