OoO En ce doux début de matinée du jeudi 08 mai 2008, vers 08:38,
Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu> disait:
> It seems that fpm2 would replace fpm, so, you may wish to address the
> RFP for fpm in #457155 maybe.
> Also, maybe your package (which I didn't have a look at) should replace
> fpm then.
caleb, does fpm2 can be a drop-in replacement for fpm? In this case, you
could provide fpm metapackage as an upgrade path to fpm2. You should
then also ship an fpm symlink to fpm2 (especially since this is a
graphical program). fpm should depends on and be provided by fpm2. fpm2
should also conflicts with older version of fpm and replaces them (since
you are shipping a new fpm binary in fpm2). You can also close #457155
in changelog.
If this is not a drop-in replacement (if fpm2 cannot read fpm database),
I think that you (Olivier) should just close the RFP when fpm2 will be
in Debian if you think that the RFP is no longer needed. Or maybe the
database could be converted.
If this is not a drop-in replacement, it is a bit unfortunate that
upstream chooses the same config file name for fpm2.
--
if (user_specified)
/* Didn't work, but the user is convinced this is the
* place. */
2.4.0-test2 /usr/src/linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c
Attachment:
pgpiu87i54CWV.pgp
Description: PGP signature