Replacing a binary package by another one(was: Communication issue?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Le 03/09/2013 03:37, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> On Di, 03 Sep 2013, David Prévot wrote:
>> if you’re in a hurry to see your package reach testing,
>> feel free to provide back the binary packages you removed (via
>> convenient dummy transitional packages) instead of breaking any third
>> party due to their uncoordinated disappearance.
> Umpf, uncoordinated disappearance.
I’ve been told that my previous suggestion was not clearly worded, so
let me try to be a little more specific.
I was directly proposing that, instead of silently removing the
texlive-lang-danish — and at least texlive-lang-norwegian — binary
packages, they could be added back as dummy transitional packages
depending on texlive-lang-european (that is, as far as we were able to
guess, providing the texlive-lang-danish — and texlive-lang-norwegian —
features). That way, this transition is not tight to the celerity third
party packages are able to cope with the change in our archive. As an
added value, any third parties (including those not in the Debian
archive) can benefit of a smooth upgrade instead of a disruptive change.
I’ve witnessed many such transitions, they even usually are kept in the
following stable release (so stable-to-stable upgrades are not too
disruptive for those third parties, and our users). I failed to come up
with a best practice URL documenting such transition, is someone able to
provide one, or correct me if I’ve made that up? (Maybe the dev-ref
would be the appropriate place to document such transition, I’m willing
to propose a patch if it’s worth it.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----