On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > 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. Check. > -- 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'. Not necessarily. Upstreams do all sorts of bong-ass stuff. Considering: > -- at the same time, the new source (5.1.1) provides the same > binaries as the old source (4.0.0), It seems like it's reasonable for the release-as-a-whole to still be called acovea, but to add the shared library packages as extra binary packages, as you rightly suggest: > 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. If it were my package, I'd make the judgement call to still call the source package acovea, name the source tarball acovea_5.1.1.orig.tar.gz, and build the extra binary packages. > -- And the 'acovea' binary package now being created should Conflict/ > Replace with older versions, correct? This also seems to make > sense. I can't think of any reason why you'd need to C/R acovea against itself -- you can't have two versions of the same package installed in any case. You'd probably need to C/R libacovea 5.1.1 against acovea 4.0.0, if the old acovea binary package included the shared library (or other files which libacovea now provides). > -- 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 'acovea' source has been replaced by the new 'libacovea' source, 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? Upload. They're clever people, they'll sort it out. If in doubt, make the changelog nice and verbose. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature