Hi all, I've just filed an ITP for "unclutter-xfixes"[0]. This package is a rewrite of the "unclutter" package. It provides the same functionality (hiding your mouse pointer after some period of inactivity), but uses a different API which may avoid some of the issues seen in "unclutter". Upstream's Makefile installs the binary and manpage as "unclutter" - it's clearly intended to be used in place of the original package. The policy manual describes using the "Replaces" (and "Breaks") control fields only to handle a package structure change on upgrade (e.g. split "foo" into "foo" and "foo-data")[1], but in that case the packages are co-operatively managed by the same maintainer. In the case of "unclutter" vs. "unclutter-fixes", it is less clear to me whether I should use "Replaces", because "unclutter-xfixes" is not a direct upgrade to "unclutter" (and I guess users may want to install both at the same time??). So should I: a) Patch the Makefile to rename the binary "unclutter-xfixes", with the downside of diverging from Upstream; b) Go with Upstream in naming the binary "unclutter", and make the "unclutter-xfixes" package Break/Replace "unclutter", with the downside of not being able to install both at the same time; or c) Something else ...? I'm thinking a) is the best option because it avoids stomping on the existing unclutter namespace, but just wanted a second opinion. [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825809 [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces -- Regards, Scott.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature