upstream changed the source tarball name...
So, I've now gotten myself very puzzled. I'm maintaining a package
called 'acovea' [1] and I'm currently trying to fix an FTBS [2], as
well as bring the package up-to-date with the latest upstream. Those
are the easy parts.
What's puzzling me is this:
-- the original source tarball used to be acovea-4.0.0.tar.gz,
and I used the name acovea_4.0.0.orig.tar.gz, as is proper.
-- upstream has changed the name of the source tarball so that
it's now called 'libacovea-5.1.1.tar.gz', implying I should
use 'libacovea_5.1.1.orig.tar.gz'.
-- at the same time, the new source (5.1.1) provides the same
binaries as the old source (4.0.0), PLUS what makes sense
to package as 'libacovea-5.1-5*deb' (a shared library) and
'libacovea-dev*deb' (the development files). Hence, it seems
to make sense to have the 'debian/control' file create three
binary packages -- acovea, libacovea, and libacovea-dev.
So, here's the questions:
-- if I follow the rules, the 'control' file should also now say
'Source: libacovea', correct? It seems to make sense that it
should.
-- And the 'acovea' binary package now being created should Conflict/
Replace with older versions, correct? This also seems to make
sense.
-- But, how do I properly inform the ftp masters that the old
'acovea' source has been replaced by the new 'libacovea' source,
even though both produce a binary package called 'acovea' (and
should do so)? ITP the new stuff and file the bug to remove the
old?
Googling has not brought me a clear answer; neither has reading and
re-reading Policy and such :(. The answers are probably staring me
in the face, too....
Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acovea.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=337604
--
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone Alter Ego:
Open Source and Linux R&D Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company http://www.debian.org
E-mail: ahs3@fc.hp.com ahs3@debian.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: