Re: Planning for libidn shared library version transition

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:43:21 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2021-05-24 Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
> > Generally, does things looks okay?  Specifically, what about the
> > Breaks/Replaces/Conflicts?  The d/changelog entry?  Will the confusing
> > 'Replaces: libidn11-dev' for the libidn11 (!) package in bullseye cause
> > any problem?  Am I right to drop it here?
> 
> >  Package: libidn11-dev
> > +Section: oldlibs
> > +Architecture: any
> > +Depends: libidn-dev, ${misc:Depends}
> 
> I would use (= ${binary:Version}) for the depends to make sure that
> libidn11-dev 1.38 together with libidn-dev 1.34 do not fullfill a
> dependency on libidn11-dev (>= 1.35)
> 
> > +Package: libidn-dev
> >  Section: libdevel
> >  Architecture: any
> >  Depends: libidn11 (= ${binary:Version}), pkg-config, ${misc:Depends}
> > -Conflicts: libidn9-dev
> > +Breaks: libidn11-dev (<< 1.33-4)
> > +Replaces: libidn11-dev (<< 1.33-4)
> > +Provides: libidn11-dev
> >  Multi-Arch: same
> >  Description: Development files for GNU Libidn, an IDN library
> 
> You should drop the Provides - It is superfluous since you have got a
> libidn11-dev transition package.

I'd probably instead make this a versioned Provides, so that the
transitional package can be removed right away from systems, it does
not interfere with the transition, and people can switch to the new
package in parallel w/o disruption.

Thanks,
Guillem