On 24-Sep-2005, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > Biofox used to work only on Firefox (as the name says), however > upstream author changed and now it works on Mozilla browser too. Great! > Because it was only to Firefox, I named the source package as > "mozilla-firefox-biofox". Unfortunally, that was a mistake, I know. Not necessarily; it was a good name at the time. > Now, I have created an updated package. > I have renamed the source package to "biofox" only. > OK to rename, right? You have good motivation to rename the source package, but it's unnecessary. The source package can generate binary packages of any name; and users of the binary packages can discover the source package name easily. There were recent discussions on this list regarding the confusion caused by renaming a source package. You might find a solution though. > There is a new binary package named "mozilla-biofox". Good choice. > The binary package "mozilla-firefox-biofox" is now transitional, > depending on "mozilla-biofox". > I have tested and it upgrades perfectly. Thanks for testing :-) > My doubt here is until when I need to keep generating this binary > package, since it's transitional. On the next upload of Biofox I > remove it from my control file or I will only remove it on ethc+1? > Or only remove it when it reaches testing? Or it's another option > that I have not thought? Someone else (with more knowledge than I of transitional packages) will need to help on this point. -- \ "Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy." | `\ -- Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature