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

Re: Epoch bump request for ksh

* Anuradha Weeraman <anuradha@debian.org> [2021-09-11 21:37]:
However, I feel that given ksh93u+ is unmaintained upstream, existing
users of src:ksh stands to gain from the defect fixes and improvements
made without having to switch to a new package given that ksh93u+m
is maintaining the same code base that would have been otherwise
unmaintained. This would avoid having to maintain two packages, one which
is unmaintained upstream and one that is.

Open to your suggestions on the way forward.

https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages has a few good suggestions.
Maybe the transition package method would be appropriate here?
You could probably put the transitional package into the new source
package and use "dh_gencontrol --package=ksh -v20210511" in d/rules
to make it supersede the old binary package and ensure a clean
upgrade path.


⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   │ Timo Röhling                                       │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1  23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: