Re: Bug#709758: Replacing a binary package by another one(was: Communication issue?)
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Simon McVittie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 06/09/13 10:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> For example, you made mplayer2 now an upgrade for mplayer.
>> I am not sure that is what their maintainers/upstreams intend.
>> (maybe it is, but I am not keen on letting foo2/foo-ng maintainer
>> decide what is a good upgrade path for foo – that should really
>> be decided by foo maintainer).
> In controversial cases, can't we avoid this by social pressure ("don't
> do that, it's rude")?
I should have noted that this was a bonus – the key point is that there
must be a way for foo2/foo-ng maintainers to declare that they provide
a (more or less) feature compatible replacement, and they do it with
exactly those relations as this is how debian-policy defines them, so
they can't be reinterpreted.
As we saw in "Debian Cosmology": You can easily change an init
system, but don't you dare to change a package manager …