Hi Andreas, Le 15/01/2016 09:19, Andreas Tille a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:01:48AM +0100, Julien Lamy wrote: >> Since this release involves a renaming (from dcmtkpp to odil) from >> upstream, I've followed the method 2 (dummy packages) from the renaming >> doc of Debian [2]. Are the resulting packages OK, or did I screw up >> somewhere? > > I spended a bit more time in thinking about this. IMHO it makes sense > to make the rename perfect by also renaming the Git repository. If we > might stick to the old name that could become confusing in the future. That was my next point, once the package issues were sorted out. I agree with renaming the repo, it will simplify things in the future. Is a simple "mv dcmtkpp.git odil.git" on git.debian.org sufficient (provided debian/control is up-to-date)? > Moreover while it is the recommended way to create transitional packages > and you did perfectly correct I do not think that this is necessary in > this case. Since libdcmtkpp was never part of any stable release where > you should care for a sensible migration path this is probably overkill > and will later require us to do another round in the Debian new queue > once we might decide to drop the transitional packages again. > > Another reason is that there is no single package depending from the old > names so in practice we are not really doing a transition but in fact it > is a simple rename. Yes, I might have gone over the top considering the early age of the package. Should I remove the old packages from the current debian/control? If so, how is the removal of the old packages from the unstable archive performed? > The only thing what you need to do is to add > > Conflicts / Provides > > fields also for the old names to make sure the packages will really > replace the possibly installed old named packages. Even if the old packages are removed from debian/control? > Just tell me if my explanation was clear enough or whether I should > implement the changes I would do in Git for a demonstration. I'll try to do the modifications, and maybe come back with a few more questions :-) Cheers, -- Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature