-=| David Bremner, Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:46:03AM +0100 |=-
> 1) (This is really Martín's question) Do we need to follow dam's
> cunning plan [0] and create a dummy package for libpathtools-perl, or
> can we just fix the rdepends (since there is only one and it lives in
> pkg-perl svn).
A dummy package will provide safe upgrade path for users if
libpathtools-perl that don't happen to be users of one of the packages
that depend on it.
The dummy package can be dropped when Lenny is out.
Also, a dummy package has the nice side effect that we won't need to bug
ftp.debian.org for libpathtools-perl removal as its source package will
become "binaryless" and garbage-collected.
> 2) Should libfile-spec-perl conflict with libpathtools-perl or replace
> it?
I think it should both conflict and replace libpathtools-perl (<< the first of the dummy package)
> 3) There is no explicit packaging copyright information. Is this OK
> for us?
Yes. Copied from my reply on IRC:
23:04 < dam> bremner: no need to bug waldi. in case of the missing
packaging licensing/copyright we assume that
debian/changelog can be used as a source to extract
years/holders of copyright. as for the licensing, we
assume it is something that is "compatible with upstream
license"
--
dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature