Re: Major version suffix for new packages
On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 2:02 PM Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
>
> Shengjing Zhu <zhsj@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Thanks for raising this.
>
> We should have better guidelines on this.
>
> Would a general policy to always prefer "golang-import-path" as the
> source package, and produce "golang-import-path-dev" package when there
> is only one version in play, and have a multi-upstream tarball package
> named "golang-import-path" for the source and
> "golang-import-path-v3-dev" for OLD versions and
> "golang-import-path-dev" to always track latest upstream version (when
> that latest needed version is needed by some other package in debian)
> work?
>
> The migration path for a library with many reverse dependencies stuck on
> old versions would then be to introduce a new
> "golang-import-path-v3-dev", change all reverse dependencies stuck on
> that old version to use *-v3-dev instead of *-dev, and then let
> "golang-import-path-dev" track v4, v5 or whatever is latest. This
> requires a NEW roundtrip to add a new binary package name, which is a
> hassle, but I find the alternatives to be worse.
>
Do you mean one source package which produces multi -vN binary
packages, with the MUT tricky? Why not just have multi source
packages? If you add a new binary package, you need to go through the
NEW queue, the same as adding a new source package.
--
Shengjing Zhu
Reply to: