El día 16/07/2006 a 14:51 Kevin B. McCarty escribió...
> Hi all,
>
> I am intending to split the source package for "cernlib" into four new
> source packages (one of which will still be called cernlib) for the
> purposes of better maintainability, and making life easier on slow
> buildds. I have questions about what to do with NEWS files though.
>
> Let me give a simplified example to describe the questions:
>
> Source package foo, version 1-1, generates binary packages foo-bin and
> bar-bin. It has a file debian/NEWS that describes important changes
> made to the bar source code between upstream versions 0 and 1. The file
> looks like this:
>
> foo (1-1) unstable; urgency=low
>
> Important options of the "bar" program changed between versions
> 0 and 1; they are not backward-compatible. See upstream's
> changelog for more info.
>
> -- Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@debian.org> [date]
>
> Later, foo is split up into source packages foo (version 2-1) that
> generates binary package foo-bin; and bar (version 2-1) that generates
> binary package bar-bin.
>
> What should I do with the NEWS file? Should it stay in the foo source
> package (even though it is about bar)? Should it instead move into the
> bar source package (even though the title of the NEWS entry is "foo")?
> Should I move it into the bar source package and rewrite history by
> changing "foo" to "bar" in the first line of the NEWS file, even though
> there was never a bar 1-1 source package? And will apt-listchanges do
> the Right Thing during upgrades in any of these cases?
>
I'd say you note that on both packages, its also useful to include
a more detailed information on README.Debian
For the history, as far I understand, I'd go just adding a new entry
on top of them for the new 'bar'.
> (In the case of cernlib, the package names in question are actually
> foo = cernlib, bar = geant321, and the NEWS entry in question is for
> cernlib version 2005.05.09.dfsg-1. As an added complication, a nearly
> identical NEWS entry exists for the version 2004.11.04.dfsg-0sarge1 that
> was pushed into stable/updates to fix a licensing problem, and is now in
> Sarge.)
So far you are likely to go into the old question: to epoch or not to epoch.
--
Rudy Godoy | 0x3433BD21 | http://stone-head.org ,''`.
http://www.apesol.org - http://www.debian.org : :' :
GPG FP: 0D12 8537 607E 2DF5 4EFB 35A7 550F 1A00 3433 BD21 `. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature