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. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature