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

Re: Planning for libidn shared library version transition

Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> writes:

> On 2021-05-26 Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:43:21 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
>> 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.
> Hello,
> Why not use a versioned Provides *instead* of the dummy package? We have
> had these a long time our packagment management system should have 100%
> support now.

Yeah, I never understand exactly when these dummy packages are needed.
Before I remembered about dummy packages, I tested a libidn update
without it, and it appeared to build reverse dependencies just fine
(piuparts/reprotest).  The only answer I have seen is that 'some of our
old tooling behaved strange' if you didn't have a dummy transitional
package, without specific references to actual tools or versions.

Maybe we can try a transition without a dummy package, and use it as an
experiment to see what breaks?  I suspect that after a release, it is a
good time to do it.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: