[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Splitting source package; what to do with NEWS files?

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

Reply to: